I appreciate that there's no standard nomenclature for the frustum. What about Jang's mode? Shawyer's mode? EW actually gets the smallest N/W value of the three.

Quote from: WarpTech on 05/11/2015 10:17 pm...Frankly, if you had a source of microwaves equal to Q*100W, that photon rocket would probably be more efficient than a frustum at exerting thrust because there are fewer losses.ToddShawyer/PhtnRckt = 2 * Q * designFactorMcCulloch/PhtnRckt = Q * ((cavityLength/smallDiameter) - (cavityLength/bigDiameter))henceShawyer/(Q *PhtnRckt) = 2 * designFactorMcCulloch/( Q * PhtnRckt) = ((cavityLength/smallDiameter) - (cavityLength/bigDiameter))The predictive formulas therefore satisfy the "Todd conjecture" (EmDriveThrustForce/(Q*EmDrivePowerInput) /(PhotonRocketThrust/ (Q*PhotonRocketPowerInput) < 1equivalently (EmDriveThrustForce/(EmDrivePowerInput) /(PhotonRocketThrust/ (PhotonRocketPowerInput) < 1if and only if this condition is met:Shawyer: designFactor < 0.5McCulloch: ((cavityLength/smallDiameter) - (cavityLength/bigDiameter)) < 1[notice that for smallDiameter approaching zero, as the frustum becomes a cone, the condition is not met](At first, rapid glance, the experimental results, seem to satisfy Todd's conjecture,although I have not checked them in detail)Example:Shawyer ExperimentalDesign Factor = 1.23205does not satisfy condition designFactor< 1/2but the experimental force is 1/2.5625 of what Shawyer's formula predicts, so the experiments do satisfy it:(1/2.5625)/(1/2) = 0.78 which is less than 1, hence the experiment satisfies Todd's conjectureSee:1) http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1302455#msg13024552) http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1276053#msg1276053________NOTE: we never got the exact geometry of the experiments from Shawyer (it is not given in his papers), so it was estimated to the best of the abilities of this group

...Frankly, if you had a source of microwaves equal to Q*100W, that photon rocket would probably be more efficient than a frustum at exerting thrust because there are fewer losses.Todd

Quote from: Einstein79 on 05/11/2015 07:13 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 05/11/2015 06:12 pmGood. We are in violent agreement to self regulate this thread and keep pseudoscience out. Otherwise, this effort is lost.This endeavour is by definition "pseudoscience". I.e. it defies all our logic and principles that we have previously and whole heartedly embraced. Space is an actual object and performs work on everything we observe. The "vacuum" does not exist and this experiment is proof of this statement. We must question everything that we have learned and realize that the truth may lie in "pseudoscience". This experiment reveals that we lack understanding of our physical reality and the "laws" we blindly accept as truth are evidence of this misunderstanding because if they were completely accurrate then we would have already solved the problem. This is a strange definition of pseudoscience, and seems somewhat distant from its actual meaning. Pseudoscience involves false, or otherwise inaccurate claims of adherence to the scientific method.

Quote from: Mulletron on 05/11/2015 06:12 pmGood. We are in violent agreement to self regulate this thread and keep pseudoscience out. Otherwise, this effort is lost.This endeavour is by definition "pseudoscience". I.e. it defies all our logic and principles that we have previously and whole heartedly embraced. Space is an actual object and performs work on everything we observe. The "vacuum" does not exist and this experiment is proof of this statement. We must question everything that we have learned and realize that the truth may lie in "pseudoscience". This experiment reveals that we lack understanding of our physical reality and the "laws" we blindly accept as truth are evidence of this misunderstanding because if they were completely accurrate then we would have already solved the problem.

Good. We are in violent agreement to self regulate this thread and keep pseudoscience out. Otherwise, this effort is lost.

@Einstein79:I've noticed some commonality between your qualitative descriptions of a theory, and the idea of Mike McCullough. Coincidence or not, you should hook uphttp://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com

I've read most of the links kindly provided about modes and energy but can find nothing against which to compare my cavity stored energy estimate of around 10^{-4} Joules for 50 W input.

Quote from: deltaMass on 05/12/2015 03:59 am@Einstein79:I've noticed some commonality between your qualitative descriptions of a theory, and the idea of Mike McCullough. Coincidence or not, you should hook uphttp://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.comA coincidence indeed. I am reading his work now. He has a very interesting and unique approach but from what I read so far, he is still ignoring that space is an object. This "Unrah radiation" he uses is still based on virtual particles and not space itself and is only "created" (or seen) by moving objects. However, I particularly like his idea of a macroscopic Casimir effect because that certainly is a space-time anomaly. If I were to use his ideas I would only use this "Unrah radiation" to describe the doppler shift of the space-time wave function as a result of the object moving. An object does not need to be moving in order for it to "feel space" and/or be perturbed by it. The Casimir effect is an excellent example of this. As far as the allowable nodes he wrote about, he kind of contradicted himself by stating that only certain wavelengths would be allowed between the object and the Rindler horizon because he assumed that the speed limit for light is what limited the transfer of information but then later suggests that the speed of light can vary under this approach. I find this contradictory because if the speed of light can vary then nothing would limit information exchange thereby allowing all possible wavelengths. There also is the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. In this situation, the transfer of information is not limited by light at all but is instantaneously transmitted directly through the space-time mechanism whether the particles are moving or not. Thanks for finding that, I will keep reading to see what I can use.

Just finished a Design Factor frequency scanner as attached.The spreadsheet scans the physical cavity parameters over a frequency range of 1GHz to 10GHz in 100kHz steps and plots the resultant Df using Dr Rodal's Df equation and the applied frequency. Also included are Thrust and Df calculators derived from Shawyers Thrust equation T = 2DfPoQ/cThe frequency for the highest Df found is displayed as well as the 2x & 3x harmonics of that frequency. From this data it appears Shawyer operates his cavities at either the 2x or 3x subharmonic of his Rf generator frequency. This is probably due to the availability of the frequency source.Please throw rocks as I need this to be correct before designing my test cavity's parameters to be as close to those of the Flight Thruster and it's 3.85GHz design/operational frequency.You can alter the cavity physical parameters in c2, c3 & c4 and watch the resultant change in freq to obtain max Df at either your prime or 2x or 3x harmonic frequency. Once you get close, you can adjust the start frequency and the step increment to get finer resolution. The scanner has 10,000 steps.Attached updated version with a few more features, including the ability to select c velocity as in vacuum or atmosphere.

Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/12/2015 07:14 amJust finished a Design Factor frequency scanner as attached.The spreadsheet scans the physical cavity parameters over a frequency range of 1GHz to 10GHz in 100kHz steps and plots the resultant Df using Dr Rodal's Df equation and the applied frequency. Also included are Thrust and Df calculators derived from Shawyers Thrust equation T = 2DfPoQ/cThe frequency for the highest Df found is displayed as well as the 2x & 3x harmonics of that frequency. From this data it appears Shawyer operates his cavities at either the 2x or 3x subharmonic of his Rf generator frequency. This is probably due to the availability of the frequency source.Please throw rocks as I need this to be correct before designing my test cavity's parameters to be as close to those of the Flight Thruster and it's 3.85GHz design/operational frequency.You can alter the cavity physical parameters in c2, c3 & c4 and watch the resultant change in freq to obtain max Df at either your prime or 2x or 3x harmonic frequency. Once you get close, you can adjust the start frequency and the step increment to get finer resolution. The scanner has 10,000 steps.Attached updated version with a few more features, including the ability to select c velocity as in vacuum or atmosphere.I immediately noticed in your spreadsheet the following issues:1) On top of where it saysShawyer Flight Thruster data: Q = 60,000, Power In 440W, Thrust 0.17 N (170mN) it says:20452.053 Design FactorWhich is an extremely high number for a Design factor. Such a high number cannot correspond to a physically valued case. See Todd's prescription constraining such numbers http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1373025#msg13730252) I used the original Design Factor spreadsheet I posted with the following input data (I suppose this is the data for the Flight Thruster ? since it has the corresponding frequency):input unit valuebig diameter m 0.2440small diameter m 0.1400cavity length m 0.1640frequency Hz 3.8500E+09and I obtain with the spreadsheet I posted:output Shawyer Design Factor (air) 0.277137Shawyer Design Factor (vacuum) 0.277244these Design Factor numbers, calculated by the original spreadsheet I posted, make sense for a physical situation and are much smaller than the number you have in your spreadsheet of 20452.053 (which is more than 70,000 times larger) which is too large to make physical sense.See Todd's prescription constraining such numbers http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1373025#msg13730253) I also notice that you have a long list of negative values of the Design Factor. For example this negative Design Factor appears next to my original format (underneath my original calculation for the Design Factor in Air -which is now erased-)Shawyer Design Factor (vacuum) -1.645Such a negative value is non-physical (a design factor value for a physically-valued case should not be negative)See Todd's prescription constraining such numbers http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1373025#msg1373025References:The original spreadsheet I posted: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36313.0;attach=829477My message where the original spreadsheet appeared: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1371917#msg1371917

I know it's simple, but I have to ask. Is the torsion measurement equipment sensitive to shifts in the balance of the mounted drive?

In short, if the system were in fact acting as a sort of Maxwell's Daemon on the gases interior to the system, could this be perceived as "thrust?"

Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/12/2015 01:01 pm...Your / Shawyer's Df equation has a frequency input, which if set to the Rf source frequency indicated, gives the Df value you indicated. My spreadsheet and yours agree.Being an engineer I asked myself, what if the Rf source frequency was altered to find which frequency generates the best Df? So I created the ability for the Df to be calculated for a wide range of frequencies, the resultant Df calculated/plotted and highest Df (as per the resolution of the incremental freq steps) obtained.Have attached the latest version which shows the standard Df calc per cavity set of dimensions, and the best frequency and the resultant Df.There are now 3 cavity data sets, the standard Df calc at the indicated frequency, the highest Df and the frequency that generated that Df.By doing this series of calculations, to me it seems clear Shawyer operates his cavities at either the subharmonic 1/2 or 1/3 of best Df versus the Rf source.It may be that by operating the cavity at 2x or 3x the optimal Df frequency, the Travelling Wave Shawyer speaks of is generated inside the cavity?Maybe you might care to simulate a cavity optionally Df resonate at 1/2 the applied Rf frequency? Might be interesting.BTW negative Dfs are generated if the applied frequency is lower than the optimal cavity Df frequency and positive if above. Simple to confirm.1) Shawyer's Design Factor formula has a singularity (due to the expression in the denominator) that leads to negative values under certain non-physical conditions. Since the negative values (and the values approaching infinity at Shawyer's singularity) are non-physical I would not display them in a spreadsheet because they may lead to confusion.2) What is your explanation for the Flight Thruster comparison? That value you have (more than 70,000 times higher than what my spreadsheet calculates) doesn't make sense. It appears you have an error in that calculation2) I used the original Design Factor spreadsheet I posted with the following input data (I suppose this is the data for the Flight Thruster ? since it has the corresponding frequency):input unit valuebig diameter m 0.2440small diameter m 0.1400cavity length m 0.1640frequency Hz 3.8500E+09and I obtain with the spreadsheet I posted:output Shawyer Design Factor (air) 0.277137Shawyer Design Factor (vacuum) 0.277244these Design Factor numbers, calculated by the original spreadsheet I posted, make sense for a physical situation and are much smaller than the number you have in your spreadsheet of 20452.053 (which is more than 70,000 times larger) which is too large to make physical sense.See Todd's prescription constraining such numbers http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1373025#msg1373025

...Your / Shawyer's Df equation has a frequency input, which if set to the Rf source frequency indicated, gives the Df value you indicated. My spreadsheet and yours agree.Being an engineer I asked myself, what if the Rf source frequency was altered to find which frequency generates the best Df? So I created the ability for the Df to be calculated for a wide range of frequencies, the resultant Df calculated/plotted and highest Df (as per the resolution of the incremental freq steps) obtained.Have attached the latest version which shows the standard Df calc per cavity set of dimensions, and the best frequency and the resultant Df.There are now 3 cavity data sets, the standard Df calc at the indicated frequency, the highest Df and the frequency that generated that Df.By doing this series of calculations, to me it seems clear Shawyer operates his cavities at either the subharmonic 1/2 or 1/3 of best Df versus the Rf source.It may be that by operating the cavity at 2x or 3x the optimal Df frequency, the Travelling Wave Shawyer speaks of is generated inside the cavity?Maybe you might care to simulate a cavity optionally Df resonate at 1/2 the applied Rf frequency? Might be interesting.BTW negative Dfs are generated if the applied frequency is lower than the optimal cavity Df frequency and positive if above. Simple to confirm.