Folks:
In the meantime, lets ask why 60 watts of relatively harmonic free sine-wave RF power at the 1,937.118 MHz AKA the TM212 resonant frequency in this copper frustum cavity, can only generate a paltry ~60uN, whereas the Chinese claimed to have produce 160,000uN using just ~150 watts of 2,450 MHz RF signals from a magnetron? The magnetron RF signal source that is anything but a pure sine-wave generator, that instead has a modulated FM bandwidth of at least +/-30 MHz that is also concurrently amplitude modulated (AM) with thermal electron noise.
Taking a critical look at this question, and knowing that the spectral shape of a magnetron looks like (see below) compared to a CW spike. It seems evident that a CW spike isn't the best waveform to use if you want to maximize thrust. Dollars to donuts says the Chinese are making full use of the available bandwidth of their resonant cavity by using that noisy magnetron. Magnetrons have lots of phase noise too. You can't easily use them on phased array radars because of that for example.
...
I agree with Mulletron that the answer to Paul March's question is that it is much more effective to have a
distributed power spectral density than the power concentrated at a single frequency spike.
When the natural frequency changes in an unpredictable manner, it is much more effective to have a distributed power spectral density of excitation (it is the power spectral density (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_density#Power_spectral_density ) over the spectrum of changing natural frequencies that matters).
The reason for this is that (as has been verified by Prof. Juan Yang in China by inserting thermocouples at different places in the EM Drive) the EM Drive is subjected to a very non-uniform temperature distribution, with the temperature increasing with time, that results in significant non-uniform thermal expansion of the EM Drive, and therefore the natural frequencies must shift with temperature (and therefore shift with time as the temperature changes with time) as the EM Drive expands non-uniformly with time. Therefore, having the power concentrated at a single frequency spike (NASA) is bound to be non-efficient as the resonant frequency changes with time, the EM Drive is going to move out of resonance even if one happens to excite it at the correct frequency to start with. The COMSOL calculations do not provide the natural frequency to enough precision within the extremely narrow bandwidth of a high Q resonance (the higher the Q, the narrower the resonant bandwidth) for NASA to know exactly the natural frequency for a given mode shape. More importantly,
the COMSOL calculations do not provide the information needed for NASA to know how to shift the frequency with time, as the EM Drive thermally expands non-uniformly to stay at peak resonance.This is evident from the very low Q's reported by NASA (7K to 22K) compared with the Chinese, who report a
Q=117K :
the resonant frequency and quality factor of the independent microwave resonator system are 2.44895 GHz and 117495.08 respectively
Compare this with NASA's reported Q:
Mode Frequency (MHz) Quality Factor, Q Input Power (W) Mean Thrust (μN) Medium Efficiency(uN/W)
TE012 1880.4 22000 2.6 55.4 Air 21
TM21
12 1932.6 7320 16.9 91.2 Air 5
TM21
12 1936.7 18100 16.7 50.1 Air 3
TM212 1937.115 6726 50 66 Vacuum 1
NASA's reported Q for the vacuum experiment is a meager Q = 6726, which is 17 times smaller than the Chinese reported Q = 117495.
Also note that the most efficient mode reported by NASA Eagleworks is the
Transverse Electric mode which gave a Mean Thrust of 55 uN with only 2.6 Watts.
The Chinese also report that they used the Transverse Electric mode
Instead, NASA Eagleworks has been running most of the experiments in the Brady report in the Transverse Magnetic mode, and the vacuum experiment also in the Transverse Magnetic mode, which NASA's own data (see above) shows to be the most inefficient mode.Why is NASA running the vacuum experiment in the most inefficient mode (Transverse Magnetic) rather than the most efficient mode (Transverse Electric) ? Because they report difficulties in tuning the EM Drive under the Transverse Electric mode.
Prior to the TM211 evaluations, COMSOL® analysis indicated that the TE012 was an effective thrust generation mode for the tapered cavity thruster being evaluated, so this mode was explored early in the evaluation process. Figure 22 shows a test run at the TE012 mode with an operating frequency of 1880.4 MHz. The measured quality factor was ~22,000, with a COMSOL prediction of 21,817. The measured power applied to the test article was measured to be 2.6 watts, and the (net) measured thrust was 55.4 micronewtons. With an input power of 2.6 watts, correcting for the quality factor, the predicted thrust is 50 micronewtons. However, since the TE012 mode had numerous other RF modes in very close proximity, it was impractical to repeatedly operate the system in this mode, so the decision was made to evaluate the TM211 modes instead.
Why does NASA have difficulties running the EM Drive in the more efficient mode (the Transverse Electric mode) ? Because the most efficient mode results in greater shifting of its natural frequency with time. Hence I agree with Mulletron that instead of having the power concentrated at a frequency, for a problem where we know that the natural frequency of the EM Drive changes with time in a difficult to calculate and predict (with enough precision) manner, the best solution is to have the power distributed over a wider spectrum of frequencies, as done by Prof. Juan Yang in China.