The search function aren't that super here euuuuu.
The search function aren't that super here euuuuu. Why is the RF injected into the side of the EM Device. I know it's a basic question but can someone expand on it a little more? Shells
About Bae's PLT:The technique will come into its own when alignment over at least one million Km is feasible. Now you'll notice that they were in a clean room (albeit in air) so that should give pause to anyone considering using this as a launch system for extremely light payloads directly from Earth's surface. Nevertheless, a little noodling would not go amiss on this topic.The available motive power is Q*P (Q=200, P=800 W in the video), so the force F = 2*Q*P/c (1.1 mN in the video), so the acceleration a = F/m (m=0.45 Kg, a = 2.5 mm/s2 in the video).What would it take to get up to 1 gee for an Earth-based launch?The acceleration needs to be increased by a factor of ~4000x.Putting this all together we geta = 2 Q P / (m c)Leaving m alone for the moment, Bae states that Q could improve by a factor ~5x (200->1000).Now we need 4000/5 = 800x improvement.Using a 800 kW laser does that for us (1000x).Alternatively we can use a lower mass and thus a lower power laser.
Quote from: LasJayhawk on 05/15/2015 05:42 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 05/15/2015 07:36 amDoes the Flight Thruster have a slightly concave top and convex bottom? Would appear so from the gaps.Enhanced the photo as much as I can for those wishing to try to extract dimensions as this photo is better that the original as it has no distortion.If we can find the dimensions of the bottom Rf connector flange, we can set pixels per cm and start doing measurements.Most N connectors like that are 1" square, and the holes are .718" center line to center line.Pixel away. Thanks. Have fine rotated to vertical / horizontal and lined up. Attached if anyone else wants to have a go.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/15/2015 07:36 amDoes the Flight Thruster have a slightly concave top and convex bottom? Would appear so from the gaps.Enhanced the photo as much as I can for those wishing to try to extract dimensions as this photo is better that the original as it has no distortion.If we can find the dimensions of the bottom Rf connector flange, we can set pixels per cm and start doing measurements.Most N connectors like that are 1" square, and the holes are .718" center line to center line.Pixel away.
Does the Flight Thruster have a slightly concave top and convex bottom? Would appear so from the gaps.Enhanced the photo as much as I can for those wishing to try to extract dimensions as this photo is better that the original as it has no distortion.If we can find the dimensions of the bottom Rf connector flange, we can set pixels per cm and start doing measurements.
Random thought but;1- Could someone please try an em cavity with the bottom (large curved end) not electrically bonded to the sidewalls & top. ie place a circular insulating gasket between the contact point of the sidewall bottom edge and the actual bottom curved plate, just the wall/plate boundary NOT covering the internal surface area of the curved plate.
Accurate to about 5% = 1-cos(18o). Could be better were you to use my observation about the distortion in the 1" dimensions.
Quote from: arc on 05/15/2015 10:34 amRandom thought but;1- Could someone please try an em cavity with the bottom (large curved end) not electrically bonded to the sidewalls & top. ie place a circular insulating gasket between the contact point of the sidewall bottom edge and the actual bottom curved plate, just the wall/plate boundary NOT covering the internal surface area of the curved plate.What do you think will be different if the bottom plate is electrically insulated?I think we could easily incorporate this into our design, we have planned to leave a small clearance between the bottom movable plate and the frustum. Our bottom plate may not be as curved as Shawyer's, but we'll be able to provide a small amount of curvature by tighting the screws to different lengths.
Quote from: zellerium on 05/16/2015 12:06 amQuote from: arc on 05/15/2015 10:34 amRandom thought but;1- Could someone please try an em cavity with the bottom (large curved end) not electrically bonded to the sidewalls & top. ie place a circular insulating gasket between the contact point of the sidewall bottom edge and the actual bottom curved plate, just the wall/plate boundary NOT covering the internal surface area of the curved plate.What do you think will be different if the bottom plate is electrically insulated?I think we could easily incorporate this into our design, we have planned to leave a small clearance between the bottom movable plate and the frustum. Our bottom plate may not be as curved as Shawyer's, but we'll be able to provide a small amount of curvature by tighting the screws to different lengths.After building the 3D-Model I'm 'fairly certain' there is a rubber gasket between the end plates and cone. It's 1/16 of an inch thick in the model which reflects what I see in the image.
I am back with an updated draft after some terrible news around about NASA dismissing these researches. They should not as, otherwise, it could happen as with Galilei having his detractors even not trying to look in the telescope, just dismissing on faith.I have analysed the case of the frustum and the results appear to be striking. One must admit that geometry comes to rescue not just general relativity. For this particular geometry the cavity can be made susceptible to gravitational effects if your choice of the two radii of the cavity is smart enough. This is something to be confirmed yet, just my theoretical result, but shocking anyway.As usual, any comment is very welcome.
Quote from: StrongGR on 05/14/2015 06:00 pmI am back with an updated draft after some terrible news around about NASA dismissing these researches. They should not as, otherwise, it could happen as with Galilei having his detractors even not trying to look in the telescope, just dismissing on faith.I have analysed the case of the frustum and the results appear to be striking. One must admit that geometry comes to rescue not just general relativity. For this particular geometry the cavity can be made susceptible to gravitational effects if your choice of the two radii of the cavity is smart enough. This is something to be confirmed yet, just my theoretical result, but shocking anyway.As usual, any comment is very welcome.In page 8, equation 34 of http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=830137, for the integral on dr', should the limits, instead of0 to ((r2-r1)/h) z' + r2ber1 to ((r2-r1)/h) z' + r1 ?