Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/20/2015 05:19 amQuote from: SeeShells on 07/19/2015 07:31 pm.....Just got this looks sweet.The SA0314 looks very interesting. Price is good.http://www.rfinstruments.com/php/pdf/SA0314%20datasheet.pdfYou should be able to measure and record the output power bandwidth of your magnetron and if you barely insert the tip of a probe inside your frustum (good to put in some attenuation so you don't blow the input stage of the spectrum analyser), should see the acceptance bandwidth of your frustum and record. Can then compare the charts to work out which of the magnetron frequencies are being accepted by your frustum and which are being rejected.Is that how you plan to use this?That is one way and the other is to record the baseline activity inside and outside the faraday cages when it's off.
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/19/2015 07:31 pm.....Just got this looks sweet.The SA0314 looks very interesting. Price is good.http://www.rfinstruments.com/php/pdf/SA0314%20datasheet.pdfYou should be able to measure and record the output power bandwidth of your magnetron and if you barely insert the tip of a probe inside your frustum (good to put in some attenuation so you don't blow the input stage of the spectrum analyser), should see the acceptance bandwidth of your frustum and record. Can then compare the charts to work out which of the magnetron frequencies are being accepted by your frustum and which are being rejected.Is that how you plan to use this?
.....Just got this looks sweet.
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/20/2015 11:09 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 07/20/2015 05:19 amQuote from: SeeShells on 07/19/2015 07:31 pm.....Just got this looks sweet.The SA0314 looks very interesting. Price is good.http://www.rfinstruments.com/php/pdf/SA0314%20datasheet.pdfYou should be able to measure and record the output power bandwidth of your magnetron and if you barely insert the tip of a probe inside your frustum (good to put in some attenuation so you don't blow the input stage of the spectrum analyser), should see the acceptance bandwidth of your frustum and record. Can then compare the charts to work out which of the magnetron frequencies are being accepted by your frustum and which are being rejected.Is that how you plan to use this?That is one way and the other is to record the baseline activity inside and outside the faraday cages when it's off.Good idea.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/20/2015 11:44 amQuote from: SeeShells on 07/20/2015 11:09 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 07/20/2015 05:19 amQuote from: SeeShells on 07/19/2015 07:31 pm.....Just got this looks sweet.The SA0314 looks very interesting. Price is good.http://www.rfinstruments.com/php/pdf/SA0314%20datasheet.pdfYou should be able to measure and record the output power bandwidth of your magnetron and if you barely insert the tip of a probe inside your frustum (good to put in some attenuation so you don't blow the input stage of the spectrum analyser), should see the acceptance bandwidth of your frustum and record. Can then compare the charts to work out which of the magnetron frequencies are being accepted by your frustum and which are being rejected.Is that how you plan to use this?That is one way and the other is to record the baseline activity inside and outside the faraday cages when it's off.Good idea.Thanks. The price was so good I had to get it and couldn't touch a full fledged stand alone for that price.
Quote from: leomillert on 07/20/2015 04:02 am...tidux can get the current meep model done in about 45 minutes with 8 threads out of his 12 threads. Considering it scales linearly, he could get a performance of 30 minutes.So, <0.5 hour / 0.013 microseconds>. So it would take tidux's server just a little bit over 2 days to complete 1.3 microseconds, which is completely reasonable on my opinion. Do you believe it would be a good use for his server, Doctor Rodal? And what do you think, Mister tidux?It's not quite half an hour at 12 threads, it's closer to 35 minutes, but that's close enough to linear scale for our purposes.I'm willing if Dr. Rodal thinks it would provide useful data. The system is located in a datacenter, not my home, so there aren't any issues with noise, heat, or power failures from running a two day job.
...tidux can get the current meep model done in about 45 minutes with 8 threads out of his 12 threads. Considering it scales linearly, he could get a performance of 30 minutes.So, <0.5 hour / 0.013 microseconds>. So it would take tidux's server just a little bit over 2 days to complete 1.3 microseconds, which is completely reasonable on my opinion. Do you believe it would be a good use for his server, Doctor Rodal? And what do you think, Mister tidux?
Thanks for the offer.1) Yes, it would be useful to have a Meep run for a file extended to run over 100 times longer, over a microsecond total run time, if and only if it has been previously run, examined and certified before, to match the input and output of a previously examined file. 2) To be useful data the same input would have to be shown previously to match another csv file previously run. Having different number of rows and columns is not acceptable. The number of rows and columns corresponds to the number of finite difference nodes in the finite difference discretization mesh, and thus it is of crucial importance to the partial differential equation solution.3) To post-process output data it is preferable to have csv file output than ods file output.
..To be clear:2) Agreed. New results needs to be able to be matched to previous runs. The issue with different number of rows and columns was to document a disconnect in specifications of what version of file output I was attempting to compare my runs against - it seems the file I thought I was supposed to use was not, in fact, a comparable run, and as a result I spent three days trying to make my output match the previous one. Thus my suggestion that control files used to create output files always be provided with those output files in the future. That, at least, should allow follow-on efforts to re-run the control file and verify the output files associated with it.3) Agreed. However, the use of files other than csv formats may be necessary when collecting multiple output files into a single package file to support direct comparisons of cell values across runs. It's clumsy, but better than using file references for links between multiple csv files. So consider it an artifact of the post-processing analysis like any other tool you might use. CSV is a simple, easy to review, widely supported standard data interchange format that we should use for sharing data among researchers. The alternative is to use versions of MEEP/HDF5 which store binary data in canonical format that is not machine independent, and I think that's not worth while.Ed
Quote from: DrBagelBites on 07/06/2015 10:45 pmI thought I would chime in with questions for the AIAA conference. I am going to be attending the event, so I will be able to report back to you guys about what happens, other questions that were asked, etc. Let me know of a couple of definite questions that anyone would want me to ask during the Q and A, and I'll be sure to ask them and report back the answers. -IDrBagelBytes, pleas see below the questions that I already formulated:Quote from: Rodal on 07/06/2015 05:17 pmQuote from: Rodal on 07/05/2015 01:04 pmQuote from: Rodal on 07/04/2015 06:00 pmQuote from: aceshigh on 06/22/2015 07:44 pmdid a search and did not find this... hope it was not posted yetQuoteAIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum and ExpositionHilton Orlando, Orlando, Florida...TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015NFF-04. Future Flight Propulsion Systems...5:00 PM - 5:30 PMDirect Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-EffectsMartin TajmarI wonder if someone from this thread could attend the conference and if there is a following Q/A, even mention some of the experiments discussed here, ask questions, etc.I am looking forward to this presentation. Unfortunately, I won't be attending. I have tried to find out, from several different second-hand sources what has been the nature of Martin Tajmar's experiments. It is my personal understanding that his EM Drive experiments have shown very low force/InputPower readings for an EM Drive in a partial vacuum: less than a few dozen or so times the force/InputPower of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, thus much lower thrust force/InputPower than Yang (who reported 300,000 times a photon rocket) and Shawyer (25,000 to 70,000 times) have reported. I understand that the quality factor of resonance (Q) in the experiments is extremely low, much lower than any researcher has reported up to now. Regarding possible questions to ask if anybody attends, one suggestion (if this is what is reported) is to ask why is his experimental Q so low (less than 100): how could the experiments have been conducted under resonance if the Q was so low?. Another question: what was responsible for such a low Q in the experiments, and whether Tajmar thinks that the discrepancy with other researchers has to do with the different Q reported from different researchers.Another suggested question to Prof. Tajmar: given the very low force/InputPower readings for an EM Drive in a partial vacuum measured by Prof. Tajmar (less than a few dozen or so times the force/InputPower of a perfectly collimated photon rocket), does Prof. Tajmar see his (and Georg Fiedler's) experiments at The Technische Universität Dresden as a scientific nullification of the claims made by Yang and Shawyer, since Yang and Shawyer claim over 1,000 to 10,000 times greater force/InputPower than what Tajmar measured) ?Does Prof. Tajmar think that the reason why Shawyer and Yang claimed much higher thrust is because Shawyer and Yang reported tests at ambient pressure (unlike Prof. Tajmar who has performed his tests in a vacuum), and Shawyer and Yang just reported thermal convection artifacts?If, not a nullification due to Shawyer and Yang not performing tests in vacuum, what does Prof. Tajmar think that the huge difference (1,000 to 10,000 times) is due to ?Another suggested question to ask Tajmar (apparently their experimental measurements at some point showed some 60% orientation dependence if my understanding is correct, not clear whether experimental noise, and whether he will present some updated data):QUESTION: why did the experiments show approximately 60% different thrust force measurements when the EM Drive was physically rotated 180 degrees from the "forward" thrust tests to the "reverse" thrust tests? Shouldn't the thrust be the same regardless of space orientation? Is this orientation-dependence indicative of an experimental artifact or a dependence on an external field ?
I thought I would chime in with questions for the AIAA conference. I am going to be attending the event, so I will be able to report back to you guys about what happens, other questions that were asked, etc. Let me know of a couple of definite questions that anyone would want me to ask during the Q and A, and I'll be sure to ask them and report back the answers. -I
Quote from: Rodal on 07/05/2015 01:04 pmQuote from: Rodal on 07/04/2015 06:00 pmQuote from: aceshigh on 06/22/2015 07:44 pmdid a search and did not find this... hope it was not posted yetQuoteAIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum and ExpositionHilton Orlando, Orlando, Florida...TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015NFF-04. Future Flight Propulsion Systems...5:00 PM - 5:30 PMDirect Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-EffectsMartin TajmarI wonder if someone from this thread could attend the conference and if there is a following Q/A, even mention some of the experiments discussed here, ask questions, etc.I am looking forward to this presentation. Unfortunately, I won't be attending. I have tried to find out, from several different second-hand sources what has been the nature of Martin Tajmar's experiments. It is my personal understanding that his EM Drive experiments have shown very low force/InputPower readings for an EM Drive in a partial vacuum: less than a few dozen or so times the force/InputPower of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, thus much lower thrust force/InputPower than Yang (who reported 300,000 times a photon rocket) and Shawyer (25,000 to 70,000 times) have reported. I understand that the quality factor of resonance (Q) in the experiments is extremely low, much lower than any researcher has reported up to now. Regarding possible questions to ask if anybody attends, one suggestion (if this is what is reported) is to ask why is his experimental Q so low (less than 100): how could the experiments have been conducted under resonance if the Q was so low?. Another question: what was responsible for such a low Q in the experiments, and whether Tajmar thinks that the discrepancy with other researchers has to do with the different Q reported from different researchers.Another suggested question to Prof. Tajmar: given the very low force/InputPower readings for an EM Drive in a partial vacuum measured by Prof. Tajmar (less than a few dozen or so times the force/InputPower of a perfectly collimated photon rocket), does Prof. Tajmar see his (and Georg Fiedler's) experiments at The Technische Universität Dresden as a scientific nullification of the claims made by Yang and Shawyer, since Yang and Shawyer claim over 1,000 to 10,000 times greater force/InputPower than what Tajmar measured) ?Does Prof. Tajmar think that the reason why Shawyer and Yang claimed much higher thrust is because Shawyer and Yang reported tests at ambient pressure (unlike Prof. Tajmar who has performed his tests in a vacuum), and Shawyer and Yang just reported thermal convection artifacts?If, not a nullification due to Shawyer and Yang not performing tests in vacuum, what does Prof. Tajmar think that the huge difference (1,000 to 10,000 times) is due to ?Another suggested question to ask Tajmar (apparently their experimental measurements at some point showed some 60% orientation dependence if my understanding is correct, not clear whether experimental noise, and whether he will present some updated data):QUESTION: why did the experiments show approximately 60% different thrust force measurements when the EM Drive was physically rotated 180 degrees from the "forward" thrust tests to the "reverse" thrust tests? Shouldn't the thrust be the same regardless of space orientation? Is this orientation-dependence indicative of an experimental artifact or a dependence on an external field ?
Quote from: Rodal on 07/04/2015 06:00 pmQuote from: aceshigh on 06/22/2015 07:44 pmdid a search and did not find this... hope it was not posted yetQuoteAIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum and ExpositionHilton Orlando, Orlando, Florida...TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015NFF-04. Future Flight Propulsion Systems...5:00 PM - 5:30 PMDirect Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-EffectsMartin TajmarI wonder if someone from this thread could attend the conference and if there is a following Q/A, even mention some of the experiments discussed here, ask questions, etc.I am looking forward to this presentation. Unfortunately, I won't be attending. I have tried to find out, from several different second-hand sources what has been the nature of Martin Tajmar's experiments. It is my personal understanding that his EM Drive experiments have shown very low force/InputPower readings for an EM Drive in a partial vacuum: less than a few dozen or so times the force/InputPower of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, thus much lower thrust force/InputPower than Yang (who reported 300,000 times a photon rocket) and Shawyer (25,000 to 70,000 times) have reported. I understand that the quality factor of resonance (Q) in the experiments is extremely low, much lower than any researcher has reported up to now. Regarding possible questions to ask if anybody attends, one suggestion (if this is what is reported) is to ask why is his experimental Q so low (less than 100): how could the experiments have been conducted under resonance if the Q was so low?. Another question: what was responsible for such a low Q in the experiments, and whether Tajmar thinks that the discrepancy with other researchers has to do with the different Q reported from different researchers.Another suggested question to Prof. Tajmar: given the very low force/InputPower readings for an EM Drive in a partial vacuum measured by Prof. Tajmar (less than a few dozen or so times the force/InputPower of a perfectly collimated photon rocket), does Prof. Tajmar see his (and Georg Fiedler's) experiments at The Technische Universität Dresden as a scientific nullification of the claims made by Yang and Shawyer, since Yang and Shawyer claim over 1,000 to 10,000 times greater force/InputPower than what Tajmar measured) ?Does Prof. Tajmar think that the reason why Shawyer and Yang claimed much higher thrust is because Shawyer and Yang reported tests at ambient pressure (unlike Prof. Tajmar who has performed his tests in a vacuum), and Shawyer and Yang just reported thermal convection artifacts?If, not a nullification due to Shawyer and Yang not performing tests in vacuum, what does Prof. Tajmar think that the huge difference (1,000 to 10,000 times) is due to ?
Quote from: aceshigh on 06/22/2015 07:44 pmdid a search and did not find this... hope it was not posted yetQuoteAIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum and ExpositionHilton Orlando, Orlando, Florida...TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015NFF-04. Future Flight Propulsion Systems...5:00 PM - 5:30 PMDirect Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-EffectsMartin TajmarI wonder if someone from this thread could attend the conference and if there is a following Q/A, even mention some of the experiments discussed here, ask questions, etc.I am looking forward to this presentation. Unfortunately, I won't be attending. I have tried to find out, from several different second-hand sources what has been the nature of Martin Tajmar's experiments. It is my personal understanding that his EM Drive experiments have shown very low force/InputPower readings for an EM Drive in a partial vacuum: less than a few dozen or so times the force/InputPower of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, thus much lower thrust force/InputPower than Yang (who reported 300,000 times a photon rocket) and Shawyer (25,000 to 70,000 times) have reported. I understand that the quality factor of resonance (Q) in the experiments is extremely low, much lower than any researcher has reported up to now. Regarding possible questions to ask if anybody attends, one suggestion (if this is what is reported) is to ask why is his experimental Q so low (less than 100): how could the experiments have been conducted under resonance if the Q was so low?. Another question: what was responsible for such a low Q in the experiments, and whether Tajmar thinks that the discrepancy with other researchers has to do with the different Q reported from different researchers.
did a search and did not find this... hope it was not posted yetQuoteAIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum and ExpositionHilton Orlando, Orlando, Florida...TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015NFF-04. Future Flight Propulsion Systems...5:00 PM - 5:30 PMDirect Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-EffectsMartin TajmarI wonder if someone from this thread could attend the conference and if there is a following Q/A, even mention some of the experiments discussed here, ask questions, etc.
AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum and ExpositionHilton Orlando, Orlando, Florida...TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015NFF-04. Future Flight Propulsion Systems...5:00 PM - 5:30 PMDirect Thrust Measurements of an EMDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-EffectsMartin Tajmar
Interesting, a Q of 50 would translate roughly into the total frequency spread of a typical magnetron; about 49 MHz. This would avoid the need for a tuner either on the frustum or the magnetron. Wonder if this is telling us something...
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/20/2015 04:44 pmInteresting, a Q of 50 would translate roughly into the total frequency spread of a typical magnetron; about 49 MHz. This would avoid the need for a tuner either on the frustum or the magnetron. Wonder if this is telling us something...Q=50 * P=1,000W wideband magnetron input = 50kW equivalent field strength inside the cavityQ=50,000 * P=100W narrow band input = 5MW equivalent field strength inside the cavity (100x greater)Using F = (2 P Df Q) / c, Force generation will be 100x greater at 100W narrow band with Q 50,000 than at 1,000W wideband with Q 50.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 07/20/2015 04:56 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/20/2015 04:44 pmInteresting, a Q of 50 would translate roughly into the total frequency spread of a typical magnetron; about 49 MHz. This would avoid the need for a tuner either on the frustum or the magnetron. Wonder if this is telling us something...Q=50 * P=1,000W wideband magnetron input = 50kW equivalent field strength inside the cavityQ=50,000 * P=100W narrow band input = 5MW equivalent field strength inside the cavity (100x greater)Using F = (2 P Df Q) / c, Force generation will be 100x greater at 100W narrow band with Q 50,000 than at 1,000W wideband with Q 50.Last I heard, he had measured less than 50 microNewtons (what you call mosquito force) for several hundred watts of power, with a Q=50, in a partial vacuum
Quote from: Rodal on 07/20/2015 04:59 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 07/20/2015 04:56 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/20/2015 04:44 pmInteresting, a Q of 50 would translate roughly into the total frequency spread of a typical magnetron; about 49 MHz. This would avoid the need for a tuner either on the frustum or the magnetron. Wonder if this is telling us something...Q=50 * P=1,000W wideband magnetron input = 50kW equivalent field strength inside the cavityQ=50,000 * P=100W narrow band input = 5MW equivalent field strength inside the cavity (100x greater)Using F = (2 P Df Q) / c, Force generation will be 100x greater at 100W narrow band with Q 50,000 than at 1,000W wideband with Q 50.Last I heard, he had measured less than 50 microNewtons (what you call mosquito force) for several hundred watts of power, with a Q=50, in a partial vacuum0.005098581064889641 gram force at the expense of several hundred watts...hmmm
Quote from: rfmwguy on 07/20/2015 05:04 pmQuote from: Rodal on 07/20/2015 04:59 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 07/20/2015 04:56 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 07/20/2015 04:44 pmInteresting, a Q of 50 would translate roughly into the total frequency spread of a typical magnetron; about 49 MHz. This would avoid the need for a tuner either on the frustum or the magnetron. Wonder if this is telling us something...Q=50 * P=1,000W wideband magnetron input = 50kW equivalent field strength inside the cavityQ=50,000 * P=100W narrow band input = 5MW equivalent field strength inside the cavity (100x greater)Using F = (2 P Df Q) / c, Force generation will be 100x greater at 100W narrow band with Q 50,000 than at 1,000W wideband with Q 50.Last I heard, he had measured less than 50 microNewtons (what you call mosquito force) for several hundred watts of power, with a Q=50, in a partial vacuum0.005098581064889641 gram force at the expense of several hundred watts...hmmmannus veritas for the EM Drive