NSF-1701 - 245x261x261 Yang-Shell - 229x196x196 This is the final summary output from the log file.run 0 finished at t = 13.054 (6527 timesteps)Total number of slices 14, the last 14 of 32 full cycles, or periods at 0.1 period intervals. That is, at 30.7, 30.8 and so forth to 32.0 periods of the drive center frequency.Number of time steps, 6527 and total meep time = 13.054 time units.
Same antenna, 58 mm in the y direction, Ez excitation.(set! antlongx 0) ; direction vector of dipole antenna SI units(set! antlongy 0.058) ; = 58 mm(set! antlongz 0)
Could you clarify why in the Wiki page it shows NWPU Prof. Juan Yang's test showed TE012 mode and in this you state mode TM11? Nice piece of work Aero and Dr. Rodal!!!
Attempting to follow this on Ubunto, which is, I think, Debian jessie (8.1).I don't wind up with a libhdf5_openmpi.so, but rather x86_64-linux-gnu/libhdf5.so -> libhdf5.so.7.0.0There's no directory /usr/include/hdf5/openmpi, but there is /usr/include/openmpi. The hdf5* files are in /usr/include.meep-1.3 requires libctl version 3.2 or later, but version 3.1 got installed.These don't seem insurmountable, but it sounds like I am not driving against the same repository you are. Can you give me a pointer as to how to update my repository list to match yours for, e.g., meep-openmpi ?Thanks
the Finite Difference mesh is coarser for the smaller big diameter of the Yang model (0.201m) than the big diameter of rfmwguy's model (0.2794 m): a less precise FD mesh with less nodes in the cross-section. The actual physical distance between nodes was kept practically the same. But what matters for a numerical discretization of a partial differential equation is the number of nodes to characterize the fields in the solution to the partial differential equation. For the same natural frequency mode shape it would be best to keep the same mesh regardless of the actual physical size. ]
@Rodal.Quote the Finite Difference mesh is coarser for the smaller big diameter of the Yang model (0.201m) than the big diameter of rfmwguy's model (0.2794 m): a less precise FD mesh with less nodes in the cross-section. The actual physical distance between nodes was kept practically the same. But what matters for a numerical discretization of a partial differential equation is the number of nodes to characterize the fields in the solution to the partial differential equation. For the same natural frequency mode shape it would be best to keep the same mesh regardless of the actual physical size. ]I don't know why you say that. It is not correct. The actual Meep pixel separation is identical at 0.004 and the time step is identical at 0.002 between the Yang-Shell model and rfmwguy's NSF-1701 model. I use the same code, setting a switch to select the Yang-Shell model dimensions and antenna location. When creating the lattice, the control file is designed to use only a large enough lattice to include the model and a fixed space around the model. Because the Yang-Shell frustum has a significantly smaller big base diameter, the lattice is significantly smaller in the y and z coordinate directions, but the step size and node separation within the cavity is identical between the two models. The drive center frequency and noise bandwidth is identical between models so there are an identical number of nodes per wavelength and an identical number of time steps per period. The mesh is NOT courser. It is identical. The difference is that the Yang-Shell frustum is smaller, so the lattice surrounding the frustum is smaller.
...
Ref TheTraveller Post #4570I don't know your critical specs, so I don't know if these are 'better' or not:Insulated Wire: http://www.iw-microwave.com/cable_specsThe cable series numbers are their nominal diameter in mils. To get specs for a specific cable just click on the cable number. The 280 series provides around .25 dB/m @ 2.5 GHz and will handle around 1 kw, for example.IW brags about their low insertion loss but the ones I have used tend to be relatively stiff for a given diameter.Or W. L. Gore: http://tools.gore.com/gmcacalc/#/The Gore link is to their cable calculator, which provides specs for connectorized cables of the length specified at the freq of interest. ( .32 db/1 m @ 2.5 GHz, with a power rating of 1532 watts, for example.)Gore is known for extreme flexibility, low insertion loss, good VSWR, and tolerance for small radius bends They also define the term 'expensive cables'.
I really don't see the point of the posts describing again and again how shorter travel times would be with a working EMDrive tech. Everyone knows wonderful things could be achieved. There is no scientific value in such "projections".
Quote from: Machine on 07/18/2015 06:05 pmI really don't see the point of the posts describing again and again how shorter travel times would be with a working EMDrive tech. Everyone knows wonderful things could be achieved. There is no scientific value in such "projections".Eagleworks' Dr. White was the 1st to show a series of planetary journey times, based on 0.4N/kW and 4N/kW propollentless drives. They can be found here by scrolling down a bit.http://emdrive.wiki/Potential_EMDrive_solar_system_explorer_shipI then did a few journeys at 1N/kW and for that action a few folks here want to tar & feather me.Go figure?Guys if you have an issue with those examples, take it up with Dr. White.
I'm excited. Found Prof Yang has achieved my long term goal of 1N/kW as attached.
Yes, we cringed.
Quote from: BL on 07/18/2015 10:00 pmRef TheTraveller Post #4570I don't know your critical specs, so I don't know if these are 'better' or not:Insulated Wire: http://www.iw-microwave.com/cable_specsThe cable series numbers are their nominal diameter in mils. To get specs for a specific cable just click on the cable number. The 280 series provides around .25 dB/m @ 2.5 GHz and will handle around 1 kw, for example.IW brags about their low insertion loss but the ones I have used tend to be relatively stiff for a given diameter.Or W. L. Gore: http://tools.gore.com/gmcacalc/#/The Gore link is to their cable calculator, which provides specs for connectorized cables of the length specified at the freq of interest. ( .32 db/1 m @ 2.5 GHz, with a power rating of 1532 watts, for example.)Gore is known for extreme flexibility, low insertion loss, good VSWR, and tolerance for small radius bends They also define the term 'expensive cables'.Thanks for that.The EcoFlex15PLUS rates at 0.15dB loss per mtr at 2.5GHz and can handle 350W. My max is 100W. Price from one supplier is around $15/mtr 10mtr min. Very doable.