There is no distinction between the cavity's interior and the (copper ?) metal wall in the COMSOL finite element analysis display of the Electric Field, so my reading of this is that the metal wall was modeled as a Boundary Condition for the field.

<<Moving forward, a new tapered cavity RF resonance system has been designed and characterized using COMSOL® with Q-thruster physics. Figure 26 shows some of the COMSOL® analysis with the higher performance dielectric resonator clearly visible. This resonator material has a relative permittivity that is an order of magnitude higher than our current tapered cavity test article resonator material. The lessons learned with antenna design and location have been factored in and the design of both the drive and sense antennas have been explicitly optimized to excite the RF thruster at the target frequency and mode (e.g., the optimal location has been analytically determined). The thrust performance of this next generation tapered test article has been analytically determined to be in the 0.1 newton per kilowatt regime.>>

Ok, I am getting confused. (something which is easily accomplished, but even so)... And finally...suppose the next round of tests does confirm a thrust of 0.1 newton's per kilowatt without significant issues from thermal heating, instrument problems, or an abundance of electrons. Does this mean rewriting part of modern physics?

Quote from: Rodal on 09/21/2014 06:23 pmThere is no distinction between the cavity's interior and the (copper ?) metal wall in the COMSOL finite element analysis display of the Electric Field, so my reading of this is that the metal wall was modeled as a Boundary Condition for the field.2. If the [metal walls are modelled as a] boundary condition is as Rodal suggests, then what difference does it make what you make the truncated conical frusturm thingy out of?....6. Just sayin'.

Quote from: Rodal on 09/21/2014 06:23 pmThere is no distinction between the cavity's interior and the (copper ?) metal wall in the COMSOL finite element analysis display of the Electric Field, so my reading of this is that the metal wall was modeled as a Boundary Condition for the field.................4. I guess I'll be starting a Mach to Sciama to Woodward thread. As some have pointed outo on this thread, there are equational difficulties with Woodward's derivations................

Ok, I am getting confused. (something which is easily accomplished, but even so)Quote<<Moving forward, a new tapered cavity RF resonance system has been designed and characterized using COMSOL® with Q-thruster physics. Figure 26 shows some of the COMSOL® analysis with the higher performance dielectric resonator clearly visible. This resonator material has a relative permittivity that is an order of magnitude higher than our current tapered cavity test article resonator material. The lessons learned with antenna design and location have been factored in and the design of both the drive and sense antennas have been explicitly optimized to excite the RF thruster at the target frequency and mode (e.g., the optimal location has been analytically determined). The thrust performance of this next generation tapered test article has been analytically determined to be in the 0.1 newton per kilowatt regime.>>Rodal, where did you get this quote from? Was it in the original paper?

Well, if the RF field can not turn the electron stream without a reacting force, then that leaves 1. Dr. White's idea of the electrons/protons appearing and disappearing from/to the quantum vacuum, and 2. The alternative of the real electrons disappearing into the quantum vacuum.The first idea has been discounted by critics. The second idea has not been put forward, to my knowledge.Of course there are the ideas put forth by Shayer, and by the Chinese experimental group, as well as new ideas that might be held Boeing and Cannae groups.

Quote from: aero on 09/21/2014 07:35 pmWell, if the RF field can not turn the electron stream without a reacting force, then that leaves 1. Dr. White's idea of the electrons/protons appearing and disappearing from/to the quantum vacuum, and 2. The alternative of the real electrons disappearing into the quantum vacuum.The first idea has been discounted by critics. The second idea has not been put forward, to my knowledge.Of course there are the ideas put forth by Shayer, and by the Chinese experimental group, as well as new ideas that might be held Boeing and Cannae groups.Don't forget (what to me looks like) the (most likely) explanation:the measured thrust forces are due to spurious testing effects and these tested EM drives will not generate any (translational motion) thrust in space.

Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/21/2014 07:37 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/21/2014 06:23 pmThere is no distinction between the cavity's interior and the (copper ?) metal wall in the COMSOL finite element analysis display of the Electric Field, so my reading of this is that the metal wall was modeled as a Boundary Condition for the field.................4. I guess I'll be starting a Mach to Sciama to Woodward thread. As some have pointed outo on this thread, there are equational difficulties with Woodward's derivations................WHO is going to be explaining/defending Woodward's derivation ?Just sayin'.

Does this mean rewriting part of modern physics?

Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/21/2014 07:37 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/21/2014 06:23 pmThere is no distinction between the cavity's interior and the (copper ?) metal wall in the COMSOL finite element analysis display of the Electric Field, so my reading of this is that the metal wall was modeled as a Boundary Condition for the field.... 4. I guess I'll be starting a Mach to Sciama to Woodward thread. As some have pointed outo on this thread, there are equational difficulties with Woodward's derivations.WHO is going to be explaining/defending Woodward's derivation ? Just sayin'.

Quote from: Rodal on 09/21/2014 06:23 pmThere is no distinction between the cavity's interior and the (copper ?) metal wall in the COMSOL finite element analysis display of the Electric Field, so my reading of this is that the metal wall was modeled as a Boundary Condition for the field.... 4. I guess I'll be starting a Mach to Sciama to Woodward thread. As some have pointed outo on this thread, there are equational difficulties with Woodward's derivations.

Compressed hummingbird wings? (Which is real) Ground unicorn horns? (Which is fake)

Quote from: GoatGuy on 09/12/2014 07:28 pmThe second case is a bit harder to prove, but still within reach of ordinary algebra:Ek = ½mV² ... kinetic energy as a function of V, again.V = at ... again, now substituteEk = ½ma²t² and remembering that [F = ma]...Ek = F²t²/(2m)If F = ma, then F^2 = (ma)^2 = m^2a^2, correct?GoatGuy doesn't write that. Instead he writes:Quote from: goatGuyEk = ½ma²t²How did he get from Ek = ½ma²t² to Ek = F²t²/(2m)?Apenas dizendo.

The second case is a bit harder to prove, but still within reach of ordinary algebra:Ek = ½mV² ... kinetic energy as a function of V, again.V = at ... again, now substituteEk = ½ma²t² and remembering that [F = ma]...Ek = F²t²/(2m)

Ek = ½ma²t²

Nous n'avons pas encore inclure inclus le français dans le méli-mélo linguistique.

Where does one find Woodward's math ? It would be interesting to see how it compares to a General Relativity interpretation.

Yes, but are his papers publicly available and if so where ?Sorry, didn't mean to sound picky.

[Je peux donner un coup de main sur ce petit exercice d'algèbre :F = ma, then F² = (ma)² = m²a², (1) is correctWe want (well, GoatGuy wants) to get rid of a from Ek = ½ma²t² (2)So from (1) dividing left and right by m² we can rewrite that F²/m²=m²a²/m²=a²That is a²=F²/m² (really we could simply have squared a=F/m to get this one)Substitution of a² by F²/m² in (2) yields :Ek = ½ m F²/m² t² = (m F² t²) / (2 m²) = (F²t²)/(2m) (divide numerator and denominator by m)CQFD : Ce qu'il fallait démontrer.

Yes, but are his papers publicly available and if so where ?Sorry, didn't mean to sound picky.OK. So there's a good chance I still have the '64 Sciama here somewhere, at least.