I think this definitively puts evanescent wave theories to bed.
Quote from: Rodal on 02/16/2015 10:34 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 02/16/2015 07:53 pmHow hard would it be to put the 1165 inside a more vacuum resilient container?http://www.empowerrf.com/pdfs/1165.pdfNotice the paper says max altitude 50K feet! It is operating beyond specs in that vacuum.....why they keep dying!We gotta figure this out, pronto!This appears to be a great finding, Mulletron, thanks for pointing it out. If the Amp that Eagleworks has been using is not rated for the hard vacuum (5*10^(-4) Torr) in their tests, do you have a best suggestion on how they should proceed?Nope, sealing things up like that is beyond my expertise. No clue how to help. Anyone?So why does it have to be inside the chamber again? Can't rf be piped in somehow?
Quote from: Mulletron on 02/16/2015 07:53 pmHow hard would it be to put the 1165 inside a more vacuum resilient container?http://www.empowerrf.com/pdfs/1165.pdfNotice the paper says max altitude 50K feet! It is operating beyond specs in that vacuum.....why they keep dying!We gotta figure this out, pronto!This appears to be a great finding, Mulletron, thanks for pointing it out. If the Amp that Eagleworks has been using is not rated for the hard vacuum (5*10^(-4) Torr) in their tests, do you have a best suggestion on how they should proceed?
How hard would it be to put the 1165 inside a more vacuum resilient container?http://www.empowerrf.com/pdfs/1165.pdfNotice the paper says max altitude 50K feet! It is operating beyond specs in that vacuum.....why they keep dying!We gotta figure this out, pronto!
@MulletronQuoteI think this definitively puts evanescent wave theories to bed.It does if we credit you with knowing everything that is to be known about evanescent waves.I recognize that you have researched the literature on this topic extensively and while I am willing to credit you with knowing everything that is known about evanescent waves, I'm not prepared to take that last step and credit that that is everything that is to be known.We know that evanescent waves couple quite strongly with identically generated waves out of phase, if the sources are near enough to each other. There could be and probably is this type of coupling between the two ends of the cavity. That coupling should only stress the cavity material though and I don't know how it would produce thrust. Dr. Rodel seems to have shot down my thought of evanescent wave photons escaping the cavity superluminally even though there have been several papers published claiming that evanescent waves, under the right conditions, do carry superluminal momentum. (Google it.) So we're coming around to the thought that there may be a whole bunch of electromagnetic energy in the vacuum chamber in the form of waves, some of them of the correct wavelength and phase to couple with the evanescent waves escaping from the thruster cavity. If such waves are transient, then could the ... and so forth. Isn't this Dr. White's theory?
Quote from: aero on 02/16/2015 11:51 pm@MulletronQuoteI think this definitively puts evanescent wave theories to bed.It does if we credit you with knowing everything that is to be known about evanescent waves.I recognize that you have researched the literature on this topic extensively and while I am willing to credit you with knowing everything that is known about evanescent waves, I'm not prepared to take that last step and credit that that is everything that is to be known.We know that evanescent waves couple quite strongly with identically generated waves out of phase, if the sources are near enough to each other. There could be and probably is this type of coupling between the two ends of the cavity. That coupling should only stress the cavity material though and I don't know how it would produce thrust. Dr. Rodel seems to have shot down my thought of evanescent wave photons escaping the cavity superluminally even though there have been several papers published claiming that evanescent waves, under the right conditions, do carry superluminal momentum. (Google it.) So we're coming around to the thought that there may be a whole bunch of electromagnetic energy in the vacuum chamber in the form of waves, some of them of the correct wavelength and phase to couple with the evanescent waves escaping from the thruster cavity. If such waves are transient, then could the ... and so forth. Isn't this Dr. White's theory?I'm not hostile to evanescent waves. I've spent months reading about them. I have lots to learn. The only analogue to have evanescent waves production like this is using light and thin metal films. Thin metals every time I look. For example, copper actually does have a refractive index if it is really thin. Thin films of metal behave like dielectrics. This would satisfy the surface plasmon polaritron idea. But the thickness of the frustum is many many times thicker than skin depth at 2ghz of 1.45um to 1.67um depending on what resource I use.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_plasmonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_plasmon_polaritonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_plasmon_resonancehttp://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=Cu&page=Rakichttp://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/skin-depth-calculatorI'm very sure it isn't evanescent waves. However that doesn't stop anybody from proving me wrong.
@ RODALArrgh, Mondays !Looked over my bleary weekend, noticed I was using diameters AGAIN !Mode Frequency (MHz) Quality Factor, Q Input Power (W) Mean Thrust (μN) Calculated w/o dielectricTE012 1880.4 22000 2.6 55.4 10.8TM212 1932.6 7320 16.9 91.2 38.5TM212 1936.7 18100 16.7 50.1 93.5TM212 1937.115 6726 50 66 104.0Anyway, shows it pays to rewrite everything in the same place !....
One of seven types of hypothetical space drives suggested by Marc Millis of the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program at NASA's Glenn Research Center (see Millis drives).The radiation pressure on one side of the induction sail would be increased by some yet undiscovered means, and the pressure on the other side lowered. The spacecraft would move toward the low-pressure region.
Quote from: Mulletron on 02/16/2015 10:38 pmQuote from: Rodal on 02/16/2015 10:34 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 02/16/2015 07:53 pmHow hard would it be to put the 1165 inside a more vacuum resilient container?http://www.empowerrf.com/pdfs/1165.pdfNotice the paper says max altitude 50K feet! It is operating beyond specs in that vacuum.....why they keep dying!We gotta figure this out, pronto!This appears to be a great finding, Mulletron, thanks for pointing it out. If the Amp that Eagleworks has been using is not rated for the hard vacuum (5*10^(-4) Torr) in their tests, do you have a best suggestion on how they should proceed?Nope, sealing things up like that is beyond my expertise. No clue how to help. Anyone?So why does it have to be inside the chamber again? Can't rf be piped in somehow?Folks:The reason I thought that the EMPower unit could take vacuum is that the first page of the data sheet indicated that they are "hermetically" sealed. At NASA hermetically sealed always means vacuum rated. The Air Force and her contractors obviously have another definition of that word, but my bad for assuming it meant the NASA definition. In any regards and as I stated earlier, EMPower has given us permission to just drill a hole into the top plate of their amp's chassis so it can vent to hard vacuum conditions when operating in same, since there are no components in their unit that would degrade over time in a hard vacuum such as electrolytic caps.Best, Paul M.
Quote from: Star One on 02/16/2015 09:44 pmQuote from: birchoff on 02/16/2015 09:38 pmAside from re running the reverse orientation tests. Are there any other tests that Eagleworks needs to run. I am aware that they need to get to a certain performance level before then can hand off for replication attempt. But for the life of me the only other test case I can think of wanting results for is * Re Run frustum reverse orientation in Hard vacuum* Run forward and reverse orientation of frustum in a null configurationIf it is handed off for a replication attempt, is this to be done in more than one other location, in other words are multiple teams to attempt this or just one?My understanding is given what was said in the conclusion of the Brady et al paper is that they want to create a testable unit to be used by Glen Research Center and JPL and Johns Hopkins. However, I believe of the two NASA centers only Glen has signed on. No clue on whether or not Johns Hopkins has also signed on. Which is the reason they need to get the thrust levels up because the Balance at Glen has a much higher floor of detectable thrust.
Quote from: birchoff on 02/16/2015 09:38 pmAside from re running the reverse orientation tests. Are there any other tests that Eagleworks needs to run. I am aware that they need to get to a certain performance level before then can hand off for replication attempt. But for the life of me the only other test case I can think of wanting results for is * Re Run frustum reverse orientation in Hard vacuum* Run forward and reverse orientation of frustum in a null configurationIf it is handed off for a replication attempt, is this to be done in more than one other location, in other words are multiple teams to attempt this or just one?
Aside from re running the reverse orientation tests. Are there any other tests that Eagleworks needs to run. I am aware that they need to get to a certain performance level before then can hand off for replication attempt. But for the life of me the only other test case I can think of wanting results for is * Re Run frustum reverse orientation in Hard vacuum* Run forward and reverse orientation of frustum in a null configuration
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 02/17/2015 12:01 am@ RODALArrgh, Mondays !Looked over my bleary weekend, noticed I was using diameters AGAIN !Mode Frequency (MHz) Quality Factor, Q Input Power (W) Mean Thrust (μN) Calculated w/o dielectricTE012 1880.4 22000 2.6 55.4 10.8TM212 1932.6 7320 16.9 91.2 38.5TM212 1936.7 18100 16.7 50.1 93.5TM212 1937.115 6726 50 66 104.0Anyway, shows it pays to rewrite everything in the same place !....Great !In order to understand the above, (please correct me if I am wrong), you used in your formula the actual frequency and mode shapes that took place in the EM Drive experiment with the dielectric so in that sense you did calculate with the dielectric in a very restricted sense.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 02/16/2015 11:57 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 02/16/2015 10:38 pmQuote from: Rodal on 02/16/2015 10:34 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 02/16/2015 07:53 pmHow hard would it be to put the 1165 inside a more vacuum resilient container?http://www.empowerrf.com/pdfs/1165.pdfNotice the paper says max altitude 50K feet! It is operating beyond specs in that vacuum.....why they keep dying!We gotta figure this out, pronto!This appears to be a great finding, Mulletron, thanks for pointing it out. If the Amp that Eagleworks has been using is not rated for the hard vacuum (5*10^(-4) Torr) in their tests, do you have a best suggestion on how they should proceed?Nope, sealing things up like that is beyond my expertise. No clue how to help. Anyone?So why does it have to be inside the chamber again? Can't rf be piped in somehow?Folks:The reason I thought that the EMPower unit could take vacuum is that the first page of the data sheet indicated that they are "hermetically" sealed. At NASA hermetically sealed always means vacuum rated. The Air Force and her contractors obviously have another definition of that word, but my bad for assuming it meant the NASA definition. In any regards and as I stated earlier, EMPower has given us permission to just drill a hole into the top plate of their amp's chassis so it can vent to hard vacuum conditions when operating in same, since there are no components in their unit that would degrade over time in a hard vacuum such as electrolytic caps.Best, Paul M.If the 1165 amplifier is "NASA" hermetically sealed the reason for a 50,000 ft ceiling may be to limit distortion of the internal compartments of the unit, resulting in out of spec performance. Drilling one hole may not do it because there is no guarantee every part of the amplifier will vent. Heat dissipation is a lot more difficult in a vacuum since just about all the heat has to escape by radiation. Maybe pre-cooling the copper cavity will help. A class C amplifier would be more efficient and would work just as well if a CW output was used. But class C amplifiers are not linear amps. The output goes from a low level to the maximum design power level with hardly any change in input level.Getting back to the 1165 amp: It is class AB so has an efficiency < 75% provided the load is 50 Ohms resistive. It also can't handle an SWR > 3:1. One way to protect the amplifier is to put a circulator between it and the em-drive. The reflected wave from the em-drive gets dissipated as heat in the circulator instead of the amplifier. Or worse the resulting high RF voltages at the output of the amplifier cause arcing. Since the em-drive has such a high Q it's next to impossible to drive it with the right frequency. The frequency will always be off so the complex impedance at the input of the em-drive will almost never be 50 Ohms resistive. This results in most of the power being reflected back to the amplifier, damaging it. , Instead of using a signal generator, if the cavity was the frequency determining element then locking to the desired frequency might be easier. Cavity oscillators have been around for a long time. High power cavity oscillators use tubes. (Eimac)
Quote from: Rodal on 02/17/2015 01:40 amQuote from: Notsosureofit on 02/17/2015 12:01 am@ RODALArrgh, Mondays !Looked over my bleary weekend, noticed I was using diameters AGAIN !Mode Frequency (MHz) Quality Factor, Q Input Power (W) Mean Thrust (μN) Calculated w/o dielectricTE012 1880.4 22000 2.6 55.4 10.8TM212 1932.6 7320 16.9 91.2 38.5TM212 1936.7 18100 16.7 50.1 93.5TM212 1937.115 6726 50 66 104.0Anyway, shows it pays to rewrite everything in the same place !....Great !In order to understand the above, (please correct me if I am wrong), you used in your formula the actual frequency and mode shapes that took place in the EM Drive experiment with the dielectric so in that sense you did calculate with the dielectric in a very restricted sense.FYICleanup and de-typo of the take on applying the Equivalence Principle.The proposition that dispersion caused by an accelerating frame of reference implied an accelerating frame of reference caused by a dispersive cavity resonator. (to 1st order using massless, perfectly conducting cavity, no dielectric)Starting with the expressions for the frequency of a cylindrical RF cavity:f = (c/(2*Pi))*((X/R)^2+((p*Pi)/L)^2)^.5For TM modes, X = X[sub m,n] = the n-th zero of the m-th Bessel function.[1,1]=3.83, [0,1]=2.40, [0,2]=5.52 [1,2]=7.02, [2,1]=5.14, [2,2]=8.42, [1,3]=10.17, etc.and for TE modes, X = X'[sub m,n] = the n-th zero of the derivative of the m-th Bessel function.[0,1]=3.83, [1,1]=1.84, [2,1]=3.05, [0,2]=7.02, [1,2]=5.33, [1,3]=8.54, [0,3]=10.17, [2,2]=6.71, etc.Rotate the dispersion relation of the cavity into Doppler frame to get the Doppler shifts, that is to say, look at the dispersion curve intersections of constant wave number instead of constant frequency.df = (1/(2*f))*(c/(2*Pi))^2*X^2*((1/Rs^2)-(1/Rb^2))and from there the expression for the acceleration g from:g = (c^2/L)*(df/f) such that:g = (c^2/(2*L*f^2))*(c/(2*Pi))^2*X^2*((1/Rs^2)-(1/Rb^2))Using the "weight" of the photon in the accelerated frame from:"W" = (h*f/c^2)*g => "W" = T = (h/L)*dfgives thrust per photon:T = (h/(2*L*f))*(c/(2*pi))^2*X^2*((1/Rs^2)-(1/Rb^2))If the number of photons is (P/hf)*(Q/2*pi) then:NT = P*Q*(1/(4*pi*L*f^3))*(c/(2*pi))^2*X^2*((1/Rs^2)-(1/Rb^2))This does fit (as far as I've gotten) the concept of a self-accelerating Dirac wavepacket (which does conserve momentum).Slow goin', thanks for your patience.
When I apply boundary conditions, Er must be zero at the side walls so P0n(cos(θw)) = 0 can only happen for specific angles. If the wall is not at the right angle, Er must be zero every where. Same is true for Eϕ, but that has zeros for P1n(cos(θw)) so it would be a different mode....In other words, if the EmDrive guys don't build the cavity to specific angles, it will simply reflect all power and won't have any RF in it at all!
....This does fit (as far as I've gotten) the concept of a self-accelerating Dirac wavepacket (which does conserve momentum)....