Quote from: rfmwguy on 11/25/2016 11:46 pmThus all could change with a new administration coming in. Reports are circulating that Leo and earth science should take a back seat to space exploration.https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-set-eliminate-nasa-035716399.htmlDave, what that suggests to me is massive cutbacks to cut costs. It's more about bailing on anything to do with Global Climate Change, than infusing money into exploration. Especially when we see that Elon is willing to put up his own cash to do the Mars shot. I think you may be right that the private sector is going to be the place to get things done. They are willing to take risks that bureaucracies often shy away from. Having said that, we all should remember that if it wasn't for John F Kennedy, and a bunch of "steely-eyed-missile-men and women" on the government payroll driving with the best of the aerospace industry, this country would not be the technological powerhouse of engineers and scientists that took knowledge and expertise to the pinnacle the human race has attained.
Thus all could change with a new administration coming in. Reports are circulating that Leo and earth science should take a back seat to space exploration.https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-set-eliminate-nasa-035716399.html
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/25/2016 11:08 pmQuote from: Bob Woods on 11/25/2016 10:51 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 11/25/2016 05:40 pm"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.I believe you are wrong in the general,intent above. As soon as Prof. Yang published a paper that supported Shawyer's claimed anomalous thrust, it really became an issue of engineering, with an intent on zeroing in on a best or at least near best design, that could produce useable thrust. Which for the purposes of a satellite could be a few newtons or even less of constant thrust.The science is something that will really come down the road in a case like this, once useable thrust has been confirmed.The two become intertwined here in these discussions because there is a lot of theoretical speculation that goes on waiting for data from the engineers.True, once there is a credible accepted theory or the science behind the mechanism, there will be another stage of developement based on the science. Right now for all intents and purposes all there is, is the engineering being teased out by a handful of DIY engineers and institutional investigators.
Quote from: Bob Woods on 11/25/2016 10:51 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 11/25/2016 05:40 pm"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 11/25/2016 05:40 pm"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.
"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."
...but someone will become zephraim Cochrane, just don't know how many centuries that will take.
Quote from: Star One on 11/24/2016 07:57 pmList of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/viewSee what you think?I think the EW paper is the best piece of research on the EmDrive that we have seen to date. Being overly critical of every paragraph is time consuming and slows down progress. It is what it is. Risk taking and not-knowing are what drives the ball forward. IMO, EW did a great job, better than anyone else has done at trying to resolve potential errors.
List of unaddressed or missing issues from the recent EW paper via a poster on Reddit.https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6juR48k_XoTREUxc1QycWxwZ2M/viewSee what you think?
...Assuming that B field is the rate of time dynamically changing (increasing or decreasing) andthe E field is a line along which the rate of time is dynamically changing direction (from increasing to decreasing, or vice-versa)... ...
Quote from: Rodal on 11/25/2016 09:04 pmQuote from: zellerium on 11/25/2016 05:10 pm...HFSS spits out all sorts of computed variables and even allows users to input their own equations using any computed variables. Couldnt power dissipated be computed using surface currents on all walls? Are there any particular equations that I could try to numerically compute?HFSS is owned by ANSYS (overall, a more powerful program than COMSOL or FEKO). Do you call it HFSS because you have a version prior to the acquisition by ANSYS or because you are only running the HFSS module?COMSOL also allows the user to write equations, and so do other programs like ABAQUS, etc.The problem with using codes like this to calculate a new theory are multifold:1) These packages are black boxes, and the user does not have complete knowledge of the actual solution algorithms being employed.2) For a new theory like Todd's one may be unable to actually code a solution because certain variables in the theory are not being computed by the program. For example I am still surprised that none of the solutions posted by Monomorphic show the quality factor of resonance Q. Can FEKO calculate the Q? (COMSOL can). But the Q is easy to calculate compared with other variables that one may need to calculate in a new theory (for example one may need to calculate spatial derivatives of certain functions and these numerical methods are particularly bad concerning accuracy of derivatives. One may need to satisfy higher order boundary conditions, etc.).I'm using the newest version of ANSYS HFSS and have access to some of the other basic modules like structural and fluent for cfd. I think it can calculate spatial derivatives but I'll have to check. I know Q is a standard output
Quote from: zellerium on 11/25/2016 05:10 pm...HFSS spits out all sorts of computed variables and even allows users to input their own equations using any computed variables. Couldnt power dissipated be computed using surface currents on all walls? Are there any particular equations that I could try to numerically compute?HFSS is owned by ANSYS (overall, a more powerful program than COMSOL or FEKO). Do you call it HFSS because you have a version prior to the acquisition by ANSYS or because you are only running the HFSS module?COMSOL also allows the user to write equations, and so do other programs like ABAQUS, etc.The problem with using codes like this to calculate a new theory are multifold:1) These packages are black boxes, and the user does not have complete knowledge of the actual solution algorithms being employed.2) For a new theory like Todd's one may be unable to actually code a solution because certain variables in the theory are not being computed by the program. For example I am still surprised that none of the solutions posted by Monomorphic show the quality factor of resonance Q. Can FEKO calculate the Q? (COMSOL can). But the Q is easy to calculate compared with other variables that one may need to calculate in a new theory (for example one may need to calculate spatial derivatives of certain functions and these numerical methods are particularly bad concerning accuracy of derivatives. One may need to satisfy higher order boundary conditions, etc.).
...HFSS spits out all sorts of computed variables and even allows users to input their own equations using any computed variables. Couldnt power dissipated be computed using surface currents on all walls? Are there any particular equations that I could try to numerically compute?
If I may reference the gun in the box experiment once again, this time using standard recoil and instead annihilating, or removing the final effect of, the bullet.If provisions are made for a very lightweight elongated box, for example, and standard recoil, it would seem that the container accelerates. Acceleration is imparted to the gun and container immediately and of course prior to being halted by the impact of the projectile.
Quote from: M.LeBel on 11/24/2016 11:36 pm...Assuming that B field is the rate of time dynamically changing (increasing or decreasing) andthe E field is a line along which the rate of time is dynamically changing direction (from increasing to decreasing, or vice-versa)... ... Well, I think you have these the wrong way about. E field measures depth into dilation, B field measures directional distortion of that dilation due to asymmetry of local charges. :-)JMN..
TT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FL
Quote from: FattyLumpkin on 11/24/2016 12:23 amTT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FLRogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.
Quote from: spupeng7 on 11/26/2016 02:45 amQuote from: M.LeBel on 11/24/2016 11:36 pm...Assuming that B field is the rate of time dynamically changing (increasing or decreasing) andthe E field is a line along which the rate of time is dynamically changing direction (from increasing to decreasing, or vice-versa)... ... Well, I think you have these the wrong way about. E field measures depth into dilation, B field measures directional distortion of that dilation due to asymmetry of local charges. :-)JMN..Spupeng7: This description of E and B comes directly from my model of an EM wave defined as a travelling wave on the variable of the medium, the variable being the rate of the time process. This description follows exactly the rules of induction. We may have come to believe that “Time” was just a convenient metric provided to us freely for us to adorn our graphics... The time process is the actor, not a spectator! SeeShell: Why the funding problem...? (O.K Mods; stand down!) C’mon! Are we really that naive? Is this here the “don’t think, shut up and calculate” motto? I have watched the starry sky many nights with a Smith & Wesson Star Tron night scope. I have witnessed “those guys” zipping across the sky, form horizon to horizon, in 5 seconds flat! .... and maneuver a few more weird trajectories...(If I know,... others know re: funding) Down here we are inching our way to micro-newtons ... We are not playing in the right field! (pun)IMO we have to bring the experiment to the very edge of our Planck universe ... where neutrinos live and our physics changes. .... blanked out.... only way they could do what they did is by moving everything to the edge of our Planck universe; either h + x or h – x.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/23/2016 04:52 amSimple question to the ForumIf you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?What data would you need from the test rig?Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.TT, specific to the test apparatus part of the question. First, I would ensure that the air bearing had clean dry air supplied to it. You would definitely need an oil separator if you were not using an oiless compressor. You would follow up the output with a 50 foot length of copper tubing coiled inside a tub of water at room temperature. This is for heat exchanging purposes to ensure the heat of compression was partly eliminated. Lastly, I would follow with two air regulators. The first being an inexpensive one to filter out pressure changes as the compressor cycles on and off. The second being an expensive precision regulator to hold to a fraction of a psi. If you are using bottled nitrogen I would still use the heat exchanger to compensate for the cooling from expansion.The air bearing would be placed on a purpose built three legged mounting stand (no cobbled 80/20 or optical breadboard components for this part). This would all rest on a concrete floor of reasonable thickness and good soil underlayment. If using a flat bearing combined with a cylindrical bearing, the top of the air bearing would need to be flat enough to support leveling to 0.0005”/ft and that is also the target value for the final level. Walking around on the concrete floor while leveling should not affect the bubble’s position. If using a hemisphere. You would want to maintain level but not as stringent. For the hemisphere, maintaining the vertical CG below the spherical center is required. For either bearing keeping the horizontal CG coincident with the axis of rotation is strongly advised.The room would be temperature controlled and free of drafts. A way to shut the HVAC off during tests is important. A waiting period for the HVAC convection to settle is advised.A 30 frame per second camera mounted directly above and looking straight down on the experiment is wholly necessary. 30 fps has been proven fast enough for this kind of work although a CCD is preferred over a CMOS sensor that has a rolling shutter. A rolling shutter would be useless. Camera and video capture system must not lose its time base by dropping frames as this would corrupt the calculations. Having angular markings every 10 degree around the bearing and a stationary pointer would allow us to measure position often enough to be useful. Three full rotations during a testing run is the minimum for good analysis. Less than one rotation appropriately brings on questions as to the test's validity; in fact, it negates the apparent validity in my mind. A full rotation would help us evaluate/eliminate level vs. CG errors, interaction with Earth’s magnetic field, and other experimental problems. Several rotations lets us see if we’ve reached a terminal angular velocity where thrust torque matches profile drag.A reasonable estimate of the mass moment of inertia of the entire rotating section would allow us to calculate torque and thus force. I can help with this estimate when the time comes. As for data, the angular position verses time stamp, and MOI is all that is needed to do the major math. A side view FLIR, other cameras, room temperature might be useful to analyze if things got weird.However, before running actual tests we would want to characterize the system with the camera running. First, with just the bare bearing (nothing mounted) we would want to measure both motoring (Paul called it swirl) torque and coulomb friction. These let us know that you have a good bearing or need to compensate. Basically, from stopped, the bearing is allowed to accelerate on its own; it might take hours. It will accelerate if it is not a perfect bearing and if motoring torque is greater than coulomb friction. The second test of the still bare bearing would feature you inducing a CW spin by hand and letting it decay on its own, then repeating this CCW. This might take 10 minutes to an hour for data in each direction. From this we can confirm the motoring and calculate coulomb. I have done this for twenty air bearings when required by our customers. I will scrub a spreadsheet and make it and myself available when the time comes. Finally, with the full apparatus mounted, we would repeat the hand induced CW and CCW spins and process in the same spreadsheet to get the profile drag components, coulomb, viscous, and turbulence of the all-up experiment.I have used all these techniques before so none are new to me. What you require (including MOI and CG) knowledge and control are all part of what we have done for customers and for building our own corporate knowledgebase. www.space-electronics.com Count me as someone who wants dearly to see this work while maintaining a healthy skepticism; mainly because I see experiments that simply have not measured up. That said I am more than willing to help where I can.
Simple question to the ForumIf you theory guys had a working EmDrive, on a rotary test rig, at your disposal, what would be the process to develop an acceptable theory to explain what you are observing?What data would you need from the test rig?Please try to be specific so I can ensure that data is available.
Quote from: CraigPichach on 11/24/2016 03:08 pmQuote from: mwvp on 11/23/2016 08:33 pmPerhaps L-3 became aware of the potential fire hazard of igniting a plasma in a high Q cavity with high power microwaves? IIRC, ~100 MW is the max for an outstanding vacuum in accelerator cavities. If the Q is 10K, and you put 10KW in, there's your 100 MW.This is a problem that has to be overcome regardless no? What solution would you recommend? Argon environment? Seems like we have to work this out if this unit is to, quite literally, fly.According to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_gas SF6 can get you 3 - 6 times 30kv/cm breakdown for air, and freon up to 17, pressurized.From another article I read somewhere, microwave fields can be near double DC or lower frequency fields, because charges don't have time to accelerate.We need to have someone give us the impedance/fields in the frustrum to know where arcing is likely, and the most power that it can be expected to handle.From articles I glanced at a couple weeks ago after TT spoke as though he was thinking superconducting cavities with Q's > 10^7 could handle a kilowatt input (dissipated), I saw (IIRC) 100 - 500 MW peak power (not dissipated, stored energy) in hard vacuum. Do a web search for "superconducting cavity accelerator "breakdown voltage"".New technology will apparently need to be developed to handle high field strengths.I just wanted to point out, that some engineer at L-3 may have had their manager snicker at them when they asked about putting 100KW into a cavity with Q > 1000. I don't know. There are limits.
Quote from: mwvp on 11/23/2016 08:33 pmPerhaps L-3 became aware of the potential fire hazard of igniting a plasma in a high Q cavity with high power microwaves? IIRC, ~100 MW is the max for an outstanding vacuum in accelerator cavities. If the Q is 10K, and you put 10KW in, there's your 100 MW.This is a problem that has to be overcome regardless no? What solution would you recommend? Argon environment? Seems like we have to work this out if this unit is to, quite literally, fly.
Perhaps L-3 became aware of the potential fire hazard of igniting a plasma in a high Q cavity with high power microwaves? IIRC, ~100 MW is the max for an outstanding vacuum in accelerator cavities. If the Q is 10K, and you put 10KW in, there's your 100 MW.
Quote from: OnlyMe on 11/26/2016 01:31 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/25/2016 11:08 pmQuote from: Bob Woods on 11/25/2016 10:51 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 11/25/2016 05:40 pm"...From its inception, the EW lab's yearly budget was on a shoe-string and it never exceeded $50k per year for build-material and new test equipment with everything else being bootlegged from NASA surplus storage at JSC after the end of the Space Shuttle program...."Quite frankly, I'm stunned. $50K out of a budget as big as they have? It feels like they were more interested in being able to say they "have" an advanced research group, then actually doing research.What Eagle Works is doing is really experimental physics. That is way outside the charter of JSC. Heck, it's even way outside the charter of NASA. JSC is really supposed to be more oriented toward operational aspects of NASA's programs. Ames and Langley are the more research-oriented NASA centers. So, it's not really a surprise that JSC can really only find small amounts of money for a group doing basic experimental physics. None of the money provided to JSC is actually really meant for an experimental physics program.When the US government wants to spend money on experimental physics, that money normally goes to the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Science Foundation, etc. -- agencies that are set up to fund basic science research.I believe you are wrong in the general,intent above. As soon as Prof. Yang published a paper that supported Shawyer's claimed anomalous thrust, it really became an issue of engineering, with an intent on zeroing in on a best or at least near best design, that could produce useable thrust. Which for the purposes of a satellite could be a few newtons or even less of constant thrust.The science is something that will really come down the road in a case like this, once useable thrust has been confirmed.The two become intertwined here in these discussions because there is a lot of theoretical speculation that goes on waiting for data from the engineers.True, once there is a credible accepted theory or the science behind the mechanism, there will be another stage of developement based on the science. Right now for all intents and purposes all there is, is the engineering being teased out by a handful of DIY engineers and institutional investigators.You don't seem to understand what experimental physics is.Designing and performing experiments to see if the real world behaves according to theory is what what experimental physics is. Experimental physics isn't about coming up with explanations for data. It's about producing the data.Once the data has been produced, it's up to theoretical physics to come up with explanations for it.Testing for anomalous force from microwaves is most certainly in the realm of experimental physics.Engineering is something different. Engineering is not about coming up with new physical laws or testing to see if physical laws are followed. Engineering is designing systems based on know physical principles.Of course, experimental physicists use engineering methods to produce their experimental apparatus, but they are using it toward the goal of experimental physics. A good example is the LHC at CERN. It is an enormous engineering project, but in the service of experimental physics.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/25/2016 06:18 amQuote from: WarpTech on 11/24/2016 09:07 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 11/24/2016 08:23 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 11/24/2016 08:01 pmAll I wanted to do was show that the resonant frequency remains constant, despite the fact that there is dispersion happening in each orthogonal component of the wave. Shawyer's model is based on the dispersion along the z-axis, the "guide wavelength" while @Notsosureofit's model is based on dispersion of the frequency as a whole, which it is assumed behaves like the dispersion of the polar wavefront. I would like to reconcile that the two dispersive forces cancel each other out, leaving ONLY dissipation as the primary component of thrust. Todd,due to EM-field energy to net force it's quite logical that there should be a dissipation component exists in this regard. Better an energy transfer to the thrust component. Pure dissipation, because of resistive losses is also present in a cylindrical conductive cavity, whats needed is a gradient as you describe in your equations, therefore I am with you at this point. Thanks! In this TE013 mode, we can model it as 3 separate oscillators, all with the same resonant frequency. Based on the wavelengths, the big end would have higher inductance (L), higher resistance (R) and lower capacitance (C). The small end would have lower inductance, lower resistance and higher capacitance. The one in the middle, would be well... in the middle of the range for each component value.If we use the definition of the decay time as tau ~ L/R. If properly designed there will have 3 different values, hence there is a gradient in the decay time as the energy is dissipated. Charging and discharging should generate a thrust due to this gradient.I'm just not sure how to determine the momentum of the magnetic flux that is escaping through the voltage drop in the metal.Using standard microwave engineering equations for guide wavelength vs mode vs freq vs diameter, the increasing guide wavelength can be plotted big to small end. As seen, the plot is not linear and the guide wavelength starts to get really only as the small end approached cutoff.Then using Cullen's equation for radiation pressure vs guide wavelength, the decreasing radiation pressure can also be plotted and again is is not linear with decreasing diameter not is it linear with increasing guide wavelength.While sims like COMSOL and FEKO do show the increasing guide wavelength as the diameter decreases, they don't have the ability, as far as I know, to model the drop in the radiation pressure as the guide wavelength increases.Sure they do! What you're missing TT, is that while the "guide wavelength" has this behavior per your graph, the wavelength orthogonal to it, reflecting off the sidewalls would have the opposite graph, where the radiation pressure goes up as the wavelength goes down, in the same manner. Shawyer has a "logical" reason why there is no force on the sidewall, but his logic is flawed and not based soundly on Maxwell's equations. There is most certainly pressure on the sidewalls, and that pressure increases toward the small end. Swap blue and purple on your graph.
Quote from: WarpTech on 11/24/2016 09:07 pmQuote from: X_RaY on 11/24/2016 08:23 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 11/24/2016 08:01 pmAll I wanted to do was show that the resonant frequency remains constant, despite the fact that there is dispersion happening in each orthogonal component of the wave. Shawyer's model is based on the dispersion along the z-axis, the "guide wavelength" while @Notsosureofit's model is based on dispersion of the frequency as a whole, which it is assumed behaves like the dispersion of the polar wavefront. I would like to reconcile that the two dispersive forces cancel each other out, leaving ONLY dissipation as the primary component of thrust. Todd,due to EM-field energy to net force it's quite logical that there should be a dissipation component exists in this regard. Better an energy transfer to the thrust component. Pure dissipation, because of resistive losses is also present in a cylindrical conductive cavity, whats needed is a gradient as you describe in your equations, therefore I am with you at this point. Thanks! In this TE013 mode, we can model it as 3 separate oscillators, all with the same resonant frequency. Based on the wavelengths, the big end would have higher inductance (L), higher resistance (R) and lower capacitance (C). The small end would have lower inductance, lower resistance and higher capacitance. The one in the middle, would be well... in the middle of the range for each component value.If we use the definition of the decay time as tau ~ L/R. If properly designed there will have 3 different values, hence there is a gradient in the decay time as the energy is dissipated. Charging and discharging should generate a thrust due to this gradient.I'm just not sure how to determine the momentum of the magnetic flux that is escaping through the voltage drop in the metal.Using standard microwave engineering equations for guide wavelength vs mode vs freq vs diameter, the increasing guide wavelength can be plotted big to small end. As seen, the plot is not linear and the guide wavelength starts to get really only as the small end approached cutoff.Then using Cullen's equation for radiation pressure vs guide wavelength, the decreasing radiation pressure can also be plotted and again is is not linear with decreasing diameter not is it linear with increasing guide wavelength.While sims like COMSOL and FEKO do show the increasing guide wavelength as the diameter decreases, they don't have the ability, as far as I know, to model the drop in the radiation pressure as the guide wavelength increases.
Quote from: X_RaY on 11/24/2016 08:23 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 11/24/2016 08:01 pmAll I wanted to do was show that the resonant frequency remains constant, despite the fact that there is dispersion happening in each orthogonal component of the wave. Shawyer's model is based on the dispersion along the z-axis, the "guide wavelength" while @Notsosureofit's model is based on dispersion of the frequency as a whole, which it is assumed behaves like the dispersion of the polar wavefront. I would like to reconcile that the two dispersive forces cancel each other out, leaving ONLY dissipation as the primary component of thrust. Todd,due to EM-field energy to net force it's quite logical that there should be a dissipation component exists in this regard. Better an energy transfer to the thrust component. Pure dissipation, because of resistive losses is also present in a cylindrical conductive cavity, whats needed is a gradient as you describe in your equations, therefore I am with you at this point. Thanks! In this TE013 mode, we can model it as 3 separate oscillators, all with the same resonant frequency. Based on the wavelengths, the big end would have higher inductance (L), higher resistance (R) and lower capacitance (C). The small end would have lower inductance, lower resistance and higher capacitance. The one in the middle, would be well... in the middle of the range for each component value.If we use the definition of the decay time as tau ~ L/R. If properly designed there will have 3 different values, hence there is a gradient in the decay time as the energy is dissipated. Charging and discharging should generate a thrust due to this gradient.I'm just not sure how to determine the momentum of the magnetic flux that is escaping through the voltage drop in the metal.
Quote from: WarpTech on 11/24/2016 08:01 pmAll I wanted to do was show that the resonant frequency remains constant, despite the fact that there is dispersion happening in each orthogonal component of the wave. Shawyer's model is based on the dispersion along the z-axis, the "guide wavelength" while @Notsosureofit's model is based on dispersion of the frequency as a whole, which it is assumed behaves like the dispersion of the polar wavefront. I would like to reconcile that the two dispersive forces cancel each other out, leaving ONLY dissipation as the primary component of thrust. Todd,due to EM-field energy to net force it's quite logical that there should be a dissipation component exists in this regard. Better an energy transfer to the thrust component. Pure dissipation, because of resistive losses is also present in a cylindrical conductive cavity, whats needed is a gradient as you describe in your equations, therefore I am with you at this point.
All I wanted to do was show that the resonant frequency remains constant, despite the fact that there is dispersion happening in each orthogonal component of the wave. Shawyer's model is based on the dispersion along the z-axis, the "guide wavelength" while @Notsosureofit's model is based on dispersion of the frequency as a whole, which it is assumed behaves like the dispersion of the polar wavefront. I would like to reconcile that the two dispersive forces cancel each other out, leaving ONLY dissipation as the primary component of thrust.
Quote from: Star One on 11/25/2016 07:42 amMaybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.With what you did receive it seems that you were able to show over the last 5 years, tests producing tantalizing data. Many here (the press sure knows it) must realize the potential advantage of a propelentless EM engine and have to wonder why it wasn't aggressively pursued with a little more funding and resources. With a 18.5 billion dollar budget NASA should have earmarked more than they did, NASA surely could afford to do it right and put the question to bed, we all can take advantage of it, if it does. Shell
Maybe I am misunderstanding but are some of you saying that the limitations on the EW budget may have hampered their paper and the results presented therein?It certainly has allowed the sceptics to have a field day with it I would say.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/25/2016 06:05 am...snip...The doorway to a levitator is again open.YES I will finish the rotary test rig program and release the data as I consider it vital to have data showing Q dropping or not as acceleration occurs and to plot the cavity energy & momentum loss or not against test rig gained angular KE as velocity increases vs power supply energy supply rate change or not.PhilSince by GR in the frame of the frustum it can't tell the difference between actual acceleration or being in a gravity field, shouldn't you experience the drop in Q if you try to accelerate in the same axis as earth's gravity?Seems to me to be a good test of whether it's something acting on an external entity (QV vacuum, Rindler horizons, what have you) versus Shawyer's theory: Just change the axis of thrust in relation to the earth's gravity. If there is an acceleration related behavior per Shawyer then you would see a drop in Q in the vertical axis and not in the horizontal axis. All without the complexity of having to have actual movement. (assuming you could keep everything else the same of course).
...snip...The doorway to a levitator is again open.YES I will finish the rotary test rig program and release the data as I consider it vital to have data showing Q dropping or not as acceleration occurs and to plot the cavity energy & momentum loss or not against test rig gained angular KE as velocity increases vs power supply energy supply rate change or not.Phil
Quote from: Bob Woods on 11/26/2016 01:26 amQuote from: rfmwguy on 11/25/2016 11:46 pmThus all could change with a new administration coming in. Reports are circulating that Leo and earth science should take a back seat to space exploration.https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-set-eliminate-nasa-035716399.htmlDave, what that suggests to me is massive cutbacks to cut costs. It's more about bailing on anything to do with Global Climate Change, than infusing money into exploration. Especially when we see that Elon is willing to put up his own cash to do the Mars shot. I think you may be right that the private sector is going to be the place to get things done. They are willing to take risks that bureaucracies often shy away from. Having said that, we all should remember that if it wasn't for John F Kennedy, and a bunch of "steely-eyed-missile-men and women" on the government payroll driving with the best of the aerospace industry, this country would not be the technological powerhouse of engineers and scientists that took knowledge and expertise to the pinnacle the human race has attained.I agree but today's reality is far more risk adverse imho. Look at those unwilling to entertain anything other than reaction mass research. Fear drives research imo far more than the possibilities of payoff if successful. Reasons are many including tighter budgets yet if research is deemed to be socially responsible, big bucks can flow, I.e. climate research. Trying something risky with a high potential of failure as the moonshot was in JFK's day has been lost. I'm sure interstellar think tanks will continue to collect funds without a charter to produce results other than paperwork, but someone will become Zephraim Cochrane, just don't know how many centuries that will take.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 11/26/2016 05:35 amQuote from: FattyLumpkin on 11/24/2016 12:23 amTT, re cavity fabrication ..... if memory serves no more than 4/100s" margins? yes? thnx , FLRogers advise was the cavity needs to dimensionally built to +-10x full 5x skin depth.For copper at 2.45GHz that is +-66um as attached.Plus the surface needs to be polished to optical requirements and have NO SCRATCHES as any scratches may inhibit proper eddy current formation and thus create distorted internal energy distribution.Or take a short cut. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VPYCZFI/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1