Quote from: SeeShells on 05/23/2015 03:35 pmConsider this, let's turn on the acoustic wave guide. Then close off the exit, closing off the Acoustic chamber. The waves entering into the closed area in the chamber would be reflected back creating another set of set of interference harmonics and possibly destructive to the pattern of the first mode. But let's say I dampened the acoustic waves on the exit door, turning them into a pattern of heat? I see heat in the patterns of the thermal images even though they are RF dissipation in the copper.So tell me, what is the difference in a system thinking this way? We still maintain the desired mode, whether acoustic or em wave. Notsosureofit I think we are seeing the same thing but you have a much more eloquent way of stating it, I'm more nuts... well and bolts kinda gal.In this case we are ignoring the dissipation by inputting constant power to make up for it. The EM and (pressure) acoustic systems are similar in many ways.When I try to do a thermodynamic calculation all bets are off.
Consider this, let's turn on the acoustic wave guide. Then close off the exit, closing off the Acoustic chamber. The waves entering into the closed area in the chamber would be reflected back creating another set of set of interference harmonics and possibly destructive to the pattern of the first mode. But let's say I dampened the acoustic waves on the exit door, turning them into a pattern of heat? I see heat in the patterns of the thermal images even though they are RF dissipation in the copper.So tell me, what is the difference in a system thinking this way? We still maintain the desired mode, whether acoustic or em wave. Notsosureofit I think we are seeing the same thing but you have a much more eloquent way of stating it, I'm more nuts... well and bolts kinda gal.
...I refer to Feynman:"If it [theory] disagrees with experiment it is wrong."Yet the trust of this forum seems to be to reject Shawyer and Chinese theory, which matches their experimental results, and seek some new theory outside physics when all that is needed is to listen to Shawyer and the Chinese and apply existing theory in a non conventional way.For an engineer, seeking to model in excel what is happening as dimensions and frequency are varied, the blue sky theories on this forum provide no help, as none can take frustum dimensions and frequency and predict thrust per power applied. In fact most say there is NO THRUST.However Shawyer's theory and equations does appear to model the thrust but those equations and explanations seem to be almost universally rejected.Which going back to Feynman, with respect, is about as unscientific as it can get. Others claiming sloppy measurement protocols are just trying to find excuses to deal with reality and avoiding needing to accept the Shawyer and Chinese applications of current theory and thrust measurements are correct....
...However Shawyer's theory and equations does appear to model the thrust but those equations and explanations seem to be almost universally rejected....
FYIHere we go:http://physics.technion.ac.il/~msegev/publications/Maxwell_accelerating_beams.pdf"For both TE and TM polarizations, the beams exhibit shape-preserving bending which canhave subwavelength features, and the Poynting vector of the main lobe displays a turn of more than 90"
However in both the Shawyer and Chinese test data thrust is generated, which should say to you that what Shawyer is saying about his theory and what the Chinese are saying about their theory is correct and your and other conventional application of theory is not correct.
Shawyer & Chinese conic frustums provide thrust that matches their equations predictions.
Quote from: Rodal on 05/23/2015 02:00 pmYet the trust of this forum seems to be to reject Shawyer and Chinese theory, which matches their experimental results, and seek some new theory outside physics when all that is needed is to listen to Shawyer and the Chinese and apply existing theory in a non conventional way.For an engineer, seeking to model in excel what is happening as dimensions and frequency are varied, the blue sky theories on this forum provide no help, as none can take frustum dimensions and frequency and predict thrust per power applied. In fact most say there is NO THRUST.QuoteFollow the data, theory be dammedAs an engineer I question everything, I look at everything and I mean everything. I look at my coffee cup and I not only see a cup but see how it was made, I look at a radio and see the inside workings of waveforms getting amplified, rectified and how the speaker. It is the way I think. Yes Shawyer and the Chinese have ideas on how this works and so I question it, it is what I do and so do others, It's how we are built. It's not to be meant to degrade the honest work they have done or discredit them or you in any way. I respect you and them and anyone here who has the dream.I remember in 1959 on a cold October night watching a twinkling light in the sky and knew even then the world was going to change forever, it was Sputnik. That era was started by people who followed the data, those who dreamed, those who built, those who cheered, but we all in one way or another saw the twinkling light. Shell
Yet the trust of this forum seems to be to reject Shawyer and Chinese theory, which matches their experimental results, and seek some new theory outside physics when all that is needed is to listen to Shawyer and the Chinese and apply existing theory in a non conventional way.For an engineer, seeking to model in excel what is happening as dimensions and frequency are varied, the blue sky theories on this forum provide no help, as none can take frustum dimensions and frequency and predict thrust per power applied. In fact most say there is NO THRUST.QuoteFollow the data, theory be dammed
Follow the data, theory be dammed
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 05/23/2015 03:57 pmFYIHere we go:http://physics.technion.ac.il/~msegev/publications/Maxwell_accelerating_beams.pdf"For both TE and TM polarizations, the beams exhibit shape-preserving bending which canhave subwavelength features, and the Poynting vector of the main lobe displays a turn of more than 90""of the main lobe"In our case the cavity keeps the shape from changing, so we see the force necessary to maintain the Poynting vector.
Yet the trust of this forum seems to be to reject Shawyer and Chinese theory, which matches their experimental results, and seek some new theory outside physics when all that is needed is to listen to Shawyer and the Chinese and apply existing theory in a non conventional way.For an engineer, seeking to model in excel what is happening as dimensions and frequency are varied, the blue sky theories on this forum provide no help, as none can take frustum dimensions and frequency and predict thrust per power applied. In fact most say there is NO THRUST.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/23/2015 03:48 pm...However Shawyer's theory and equations does appear to model the thrust but those equations and explanations seem to be almost universally rejected....I reject them simply because there are numerous, glaring errors in both math and logic, in all of Shawyer's papers. It shows he has a vague engineering understanding of waveguide physics, but has very little understanding of the physical mechanisms that governs "why" those principle can be applied. As I've said, in the end, his results that F1 - F2 > 0, is correct, he's not that far off and IMO he provides a useful approximation. It is the derivation of the Thrust and his concept of how it is achieved that is incorrect. I'm sorry it's taking me so long to write up this data, but life is not easy and neither is physics!Todd
