http://ir.hfcas.ac.cn/bitstream/334002/12022/1/
Mode%20converters%20for%20generating%20the
%20HE%2011%20%28gaussian%20like%29%20mode
%20from%20TE%2001%20in%20a%20circular%20waveguide.pdf
In the above article, the mode coupling theory shows how a bended circular waveguide transforms a TE01 mode into a TM11 mode.
Of course, always will be spurious modes in the process.
My questions are about :
1- By temporal reverse symmetry , the same bended pipe can transform both TE into TM and TM into TE modes?
2-By Parity/mirror symmetry, if one cuts the same converter at it's half lenght and close one of the ends with the same metal of the waveguide, then if one inject a TE mode at the other open end, one gets a TM reflected mode?
Another question.
The TE01 and TM11 modes has different atenuation at same frequency right?
Let's suppose one has two simultaneous incident power flux of same intensity, one TE01 from left to right, and other TM11 from right to left, on a straight cilindrical waveguide, then if TM11 has more attenuation compared with TE01, then there are more photons absorved by waveguide from right to left, and more linear momentum transfered of electromagnectic field to the waveguide walls from right to left, and because of that, the waveguide will be pushed from right to left ?
Please save us time on this. WikiP reports delta-c/c <= 10-17 from the most recent measurements. Is this the value taken by your two guys?
viXra is just about the last place to go for "information", btw.
OK, I peeked. This from arXiv critiques your sources
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.6095
Diurnal and seasonal variations in CO2 is the likely culprit.
Well I'm certainly not interested in citing vixra trying to overthrow consensus. But I am also obliged to think differently nowadays because of this silly copper can. It is interesting reading nonetheless.
I fully ascribe to the fact that there are no preferred reference frames. At the same time, I'm seeing tantalizing clues that it may be possible to artificially create a preferred reference frame. Think back to the "laser through the resonant cavity" experiment * reported by Star-Drive and the magnetoelectric anisotropy in air experiment I linked to so many times.
The common theme there anisotropy in the speed of light in a medium while under external electromagnetic fields.
So if you have an experiment that shows the speed of light is different going forward as opposed to coming back, where is the preferred frame? Does that by definition set a preferred frame? I'm not sure. This is where all this Aether stuff comes in, as some believe the Aether is either partially or completely entrained by matter. If indeed it is found to be possible to create a preferred reference frame, is that going to ruin everyone's day?
I want to make sure people understand that when I say Aether, I'm not referring to the Luminiferous Aether. I mean the one where there is no concept of motion.
Curious to note, that within the EmDrive's tapered cavity, we have a varying group velocity from fore to aft. Same for phase velocity.** But if you flip the whole thing over, there is symmetry.
With the EmDrive in mind here, and just for S&G's here, assuming that if such a Relativistic Aether exists and that the electromagnetic component (what we call the electromagnetic vacuum) of that Aether must obey the same laws as the real electromagnetic component, did an artificial preferred frame get created in there?
Is breaking the symmetry of a simple cylindrical resonator enough to do this? I don't think so. I've been looking for a parity violation of in an empty copper can for months now and I can't find it. The closest thing that even resembles handedness would be the counter rotating E fields as seen in the TE012 Comsol plot from Eagleworks.
* All I can do is take their word that they ruled out the obvious like refractive index, heating...etc
** http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/light-phase-and-group-velocities (bottom two equations)
For me, what is important here, and pretty much my entire focus is (trusting all the experiments completed to date aren't all flawed) figuring out how momentum is conserved. We spend a lot of time here creating valuable data and analysis, but I choose to sit out most of that because I view those as optimizations.
I don't think we'll make much progress unless the physics is found first. I would honestly walk away from this whole thing if I knew that the pros from academia were on it. This EmDrive is such a hot potato apparently, that only a dirty dozen or so even really cares.
Great post! What you are describing is not a preferred reference frame, but rather a gravitational field, as described in the Polarizable Vacuum Model of GR. The radial metric component of the Schwarzschild metric, and gravitational red-shift are evidence that "the (coordinate) speed of light is different going forward as opposed to coming back,..".
What I've boiled down in my crucible is the question, Is the phase velocity inside the tapered cavity actually
slower than light in vacuum? If so, then this will explain our momentum greater than a photon rocket. I don't have a definitive answer for this (yet).
Here is something a friend sent me. Seems pertinent, but it is in regards to a test particle riding an EM impulse.
In it, he shows that the particle can absorb more momentum than it normally would, i.e., the momentum has increased due to gravity.
Todd
Meep does concur.
How does that stack up with the known output of the magnetron? Is there a good reason to test in TE012 and not TE013?
I didn't get the bandwidth reduced to realistic values so the noisy source I used had over 10 times the realistic bandwdith. Resonated at about 2.426 GHz, I can't verify the mode. So meep didn't really give us much information in this case.
Let's shrink it up areo! My mistake let's do the TE012 right this time using Dr. Rodals and X_Ray's lengths @ 163mm, keep the top circular tube @ 100mm and the same insertion depth as before. Let Harmiv calculate the resonate frequency and Q.
I'll be interested how this mode looks with this short of length.
This ok? Thanks Areo!
Shell
Like this? It looks lop-sided to me but I can't guess why. Can you?
If 1N/kW could be proven, every aerospace company on the planet would be building these. Yes, it's that big a game-changer. Mind you, if I understand the physics correctly, a 100% efficient unit would be 1KN/KW right? That means currently we're only talking about a 0.1% efficiency (1N) and that would be enough to change the face of spaceflight. Figure this thing out and the money will come at you like a firehose (my conjecture).
Only when they see someone has bought one.
Meep does concur.
How does that stack up with the known output of the magnetron? Is there a good reason to test in TE012 and not TE013?
I didn't get the bandwidth reduced to realistic values so the noisy source I used had over 10 times the realistic bandwdith. Resonated at about 2.426 GHz, I can't verify the mode. So meep didn't really give us much information in this case.
Let's shrink it up areo! My mistake let's do the TE012 right this time using Dr. Rodals and X_Ray's lengths @ 163mm, keep the top circular tube @ 100mm and the same insertion depth as before. Let Harmiv calculate the resonate frequency and Q.
I'll be interested how this mode looks with this short of length.
This ok? Thanks Areo!
Shell
Like this? It looks lop-sided to me but I can't guess why. Can you?
Yes drop the bottom and top down to your sidewall line and that will truly come close to what I should end up with.
Meep does concur.
How does that stack up with the known output of the magnetron? Is there a good reason to test in TE012 and not TE013?
I didn't get the bandwidth reduced to realistic values so the noisy source I used had over 10 times the realistic bandwdith. Resonated at about 2.426 GHz, I can't verify the mode. So meep didn't really give us much information in this case.
Let's shrink it up areo! My mistake let's do the TE012 right this time using Dr. Rodals and X_Ray's lengths @ 163mm, keep the top circular tube @ 100mm and the same insertion depth as before. Let Harmiv calculate the resonate frequency and Q.
I'll be interested how this mode looks with this short of length.
This ok? Thanks Areo!
Shell
Like this? It looks lop-sided to me but I can't guess why. Can you?
The antenna should be closer to the big base. How are you coming up with that distance?
I have not written a program to plot the contours for flat faces, but here is what the electric azimuthal field contour plot looks like for spherical ends, so that you have a rough idea of where to place the antenna
Meep does concur.
How does that stack up with the known output of the magnetron? Is there a good reason to test in TE012 and not TE013?
I didn't get the bandwidth reduced to realistic values so the noisy source I used had over 10 times the realistic bandwdith. Resonated at about 2.426 GHz, I can't verify the mode. So meep didn't really give us much information in this case.
Let's shrink it up areo! My mistake let's do the TE012 right this time using Dr. Rodals and X_Ray's lengths @ 163mm, keep the top circular tube @ 100mm and the same insertion depth as before. Let Harmiv calculate the resonate frequency and Q.
I'll be interested how this mode looks with this short of length.
This ok? Thanks Areo!
Shell
Like this? It looks lop-sided to me but I can't guess why. Can you?
The antenna should be closer to the big base. How are you coming up with that distance?
It looks like the same position as in the last run for Yang. This is really squeezed down with the the base plate size almost the same as the distance between the plates.
Meep does concur.
How does that stack up with the known output of the magnetron? Is there a good reason to test in TE012 and not TE013?
I didn't get the bandwidth reduced to realistic values so the noisy source I used had over 10 times the realistic bandwdith. Resonated at about 2.426 GHz, I can't verify the mode. So meep didn't really give us much information in this case.
Let's shrink it up areo! My mistake let's do the TE012 right this time using Dr. Rodals and X_Ray's lengths @ 163mm, keep the top circular tube @ 100mm and the same insertion depth as before. Let Harmiv calculate the resonate frequency and Q.
I'll be interested how this mode looks with this short of length.
This ok? Thanks Areo!
Shell
Like this? It looks lop-sided to me but I can't guess why. Can you?
The antenna should be closer to the big base. How are you coming up with that distance?
It looks like the same position as in the last run for Yang. This is really squeezed down with the the base plate size almost the same as the distance between the plates.
I have not written a program to plot the contours for flat faces, but here is what the electric azimuthal field contour plot looks like for spherical ends, so that you have a rough idea of where to place the antenna
Too early for a failed test, I believe. It might also be that Shawyer has put the squeeze on him and taken him private.
It's a great shame if he's walked, because (with no disrespect intended to other heroic DIYers) he had the best damn experimental design I've yet seen. I hope he reconsiders. I also hope he can beat that disease.
Could have been Shawyer and gotten a STFU from his government. The irony is, I'm not sure about the theory, but I think he is basically right about the implementation. Trying to tune the device to the input frequency is just too hard with a noisy RF source and a cavity with dimensions that change as it heats. What we really need is to throw some computing power at it and tune the frequency to maintain Q.
Too early for a failed test, I believe. It might also be that Shawyer has put the squeeze on him and taken him private.
It's a great shame if he's walked, because (with no disrespect intended to other heroic DIYers) he had the best damn experimental design I've yet seen. I hope he reconsiders. I also hope he can beat that disease.
Could have been Shawyer and gotten a STFU from his government. The irony is, I'm not sure about the theory, but I think he is basically right about the implementation. Trying to tune the device to the input frequency is just too hard with a noisy RF source and a cavity with dimensions that change as it heats. What we really need is to throw some computing power at it and tune the frequency to maintain Q.
There for a while, I was wondering if Finkle
was Einhorn, mostly because of TT's unwavering certainty that EmDrive was a sure thing (without anything to prove it yet) and his close connections with Shawyer. I asked and he said no.
This will be an interesting week for "As the Frustum Turns".
Too early for a failed test, I believe. It might also be that Shawyer has put the squeeze on him and taken him private.
It's a great shame if he's walked, because (with no disrespect intended to other heroic DIYers) he had the best damn experimental design I've yet seen. I hope he reconsiders. I also hope he can beat that disease.
Could have been Shawyer and gotten a STFU from his government. The irony is, I'm not sure about the theory, but I think he is basically right about the implementation. Trying to tune the device to the input frequency is just too hard with a noisy RF source and a cavity with dimensions that change as it heats. What we really need is to throw some computing power at it and tune the frequency to maintain Q.
There for a while, I was wondering if Finkle was Einhorn, mostly because of TT's unwavering certainty that EmDrive was a sure thing (without anything to prove it yet) and his close connections with Shawyer. I asked and he said no.
This will be an interesting week for "As the Frustum Turns".
because "as the frustrum twitches a little bit" doesn't have the same cache.
It is way, way too early to start jumping to conclusions. Anyone who does is not being fair. Until open and replicated experimental data is available, it's all noise as far as I'm concerned. As matters stand, there is nothing that is open and replicated.
The ironclad test is a space test. This cannot readily be fooled with artifacts. What's required for that is twin units in reasonably close proximity, one powered and one not, and in all other respects identical.
I know I'm a broken record, but IMHO there are many more uncontrollable factors in low earth orbit than in the lab, considering the minscule power available for the thruster on a cubesat.
In a 6u cubesat, we can get up to about 400W from the solar arrays and store enough to do a few KW of output for short periods (several minutes). That avionics bus design is on my computer now (I do avionics for a living).
If I was forced to do a cubesats flight test, I think I would do the 5u linear configuration, put the biggest battery I could in it, put the thruster on the end cube and see it I could get it rotating like a baton (as long as there is a way to detect the rotation - are there micro-RLGs?). This would be analogous to the rotating table tests some of the DiYers are contemplating. It would also avoid the issues of trying to isolate small velocity changes from drag and orbital mechanics effects.
There would still be challenges of stabilizing the spacecraft about the minor axis and what such a potential rotation would mean for power generation and communications.
How do you get angular momentum out of a system which starts out with none? Surely the entire stick will just translate? (replacing EmDrive with a rocket so it's something we are sure works well). Unless the centre of rotation has an oar bolted to it that dips into the Aetheric Aether (that was sarcasm) it won't spin.
If I was forced to do a cubesats flight test, I think I would do the 5u linear configuration, put the biggest battery I could in it, put the thruster on the end cube and see it I could get it rotating like a baton (as long as there is a way to detect the rotation - are there micro-RLGs?). This would be analogous to the rotating table tests some of the DiYers are contemplating. It would also avoid the issues of trying to isolate small velocity changes from drag and orbital mechanics effects.
There would still be challenges of stabilizing the spacecraft about the minor axis and what such a potential rotation would mean for power generation and communications.
3-Axis Gyro/Accelerometer('s) are very available in a single chip package ... and cheap
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10937
How do you get angular momentum out of a system which starts out with none? Surely the entire stick will just translate? (replacing EmDrive with a rocket so it's something we are sure works well). Unless the centre of rotation has an oar bolted to it that dips into the Aetheric Aether (that was sarcasm) it won't spin.
Of course it will spin, after a fashion. No different than a stabilized satellite with one RCS stuck "ON." It will have a combined linear force that you are referring to, and a torque about the cg. I think it will spiral.
How do you get angular momentum out of a system which starts out with none? Surely the entire stick will just translate? (replacing EmDrive with a rocket so it's something we are sure works well). Unless the centre of rotation has an oar bolted to it that dips into the Aetheric Aether (that was sarcasm) it won't spin.
For your rocket analogy, that is exactly how attitude control thrusters rotate spacecraft - creating a force times moment arm. This causes an angular acceleration as long as the force is applied, which causes a change in spacecraft angular momentum. "System" angular momentum is conserved when one includes the momentum vector if the ejected propellant stream.
How it is conserved with something like an EM Drive is, of course the 60 trillion dollar question.
How do you get angular momentum out of a system which starts out with none? Surely the entire stick will just translate? (replacing EmDrive with a rocket so it's something we are sure works well). Unless the centre of rotation has an oar bolted to it that dips into the Aetheric Aether (that was sarcasm) it won't spin.
Put it in a closed universe. Then all linear momentum is really just angular momentum, as all motion is really movement about an arc.
Visual aide:
If I was forced to do a cubesats flight test, I think I would do the 5u linear configuration, put the biggest battery I could in it, put the thruster on the end cube and see it I could get it rotating like a baton (as long as there is a way to detect the rotation - are there micro-RLGs?). This would be analogous to the rotating table tests some of the DiYers are contemplating. It would also avoid the issues of trying to isolate small velocity changes from drag and orbital mechanics effects.
There would still be challenges of stabilizing the spacecraft about the minor axis and what such a potential rotation would mean for power generation and communications.
3-Axis Gyro/Accelerometer('s) are very available in a single chip package ... and cheap
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10937
:)I guess I should have known that since my PHONE has them
