Quote from: glennfish on 12/05/2015 12:23 amthis argument just doesn't work.This Is Not Nature is not a good excuse for eschewing practices that increase the clarity and precision of communications. This forum is the only publicly visible and moderated grounds we have for discussing and disseminating EM Drive experimental results and theories. Showing a bit of scientific rigor and decorum would only improve it.
this argument just doesn't work.
...With all due respect, I think you're in left field here.AAAS Science is on the same par as Nature. Those are the #1 and #2 journals on this planet. Stating that sociology and evolution and ecology is not on par with physics isn't an argument, it's a theology. Which two journals on this planet published the first human genome? Is that not something on par with physics or is biology a "soft" science of little repute?I'm sure you can cite many other journals of repute and I won't refute that, but a publication in either of these has significant peer review and strenuous editorial standards that can't be ignored unless retracted. My point here is that you're trying to hold NON professional science to the same standards as professional science, when professional science has its own publication problems with negative reporting.Since there is no reputable "EM Journal", IMHO you are way off base demanding "NEGATIVE" reports when reputable journals have exactly the same problem.Dragging in the historical disaster of cold fusion as a refutation is also off base.You want the NON professional folks to publish negative results as a baseline? That would be great!!! But it doesn't happen in the professional science literature either.EM folks can be criticized legitimately for many many reasons, but this argument of yours is off the wall.Sorry.I respect you and your input, but this argument just doesn't work.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 07:22 pmQuote from: Rodal on 12/04/2015 06:52 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 06:42 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 12/04/2015 06:31 pmQuote from: Rodal on 12/04/2015 06:02 pmI think that TP here stands for "Torsional Pendulum"I wish that everybody in these threads would stop writing acronyms like TP, CoM, etc., and if they insist in doing so, they would at least be kind enough to define their acronyms upon their first occurrence in their text. :-)For example:Blah blah blah Conservation of Momentum (CoM) blah blah blah and I think that blah blah blah CoM because this is what I think, blah blah blahTo be fair, people have been using the COM and COE shorthands in this thread for a while now. When you read biology literature, you don't see "blah blah deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) blah blah and then the DNA blah" because everyone knows what the acronym is and constantly redefining it is silly. I was under the impression COM and COE were pretty well established, but apparently not. I did take me a while to figure out what TP meant though. Duh, I think I knew this once, but I've slept since then Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a horizontal balance beam negate the effects of Torsional Balance? Lift, yes, torsional forces? no.Doc, what does "Blah" stand for? QuoteBlah: used to substitute for actual words in contexts where they are felt to be too tedious or lengthy to give in fullBlah is not an acronym for anything in particular but stands for anything that can be written //////////////Concerning the EM Drive experiment in the "horizontal balance beam" as for example in your experiment, it is subject to several thermal effects, which have not been yet properly analyzed, to my knowledge. Concerning the most obvious thermal effect, the natural thermal convection, such analysis would involve a fluid mechanics study of the lift and drag vs. time effect produced by the microwave heating. There are also thermal radiation effects, etc. etc.Oops etc. is another acronym Yep...I've been anxiously awaiting (hint-hint) some analysis reporting of the September tests. It gets above my pay grade to do this so experts here on NSF volunteered to do it for me. Raw data/temps/humidy/weight was supplied a couple of months ago and although anxiously awaiting, will not rush the results. Only hint I got a couple of weeks ago that analysis is continuing and nothing obvious has yet explained the mag-on variations from thermal rise. No official results yet, but thats as far as its gotten as of today.I was referring to an analysis using Computational Fluid Dynamics to analyze the thermal convection effects (for example using FLUENT/ANSYS, etc.).I do not think that the person that you are referring to was going to conduct such an analysis.There are no closed-form solutions for the transient fluid mechanics problem (your turning your magnetron of and off) involving thermal convection, and the geometry of the experiment is not that simple.There was only one person with a background in Computational Fluid Dynamics that I am aware of having an exchange in these threads (if there are others reading this, please let us know and sorry for my omission) . We had a short exchange at the time referring to using MEEP to get a reasonable amount of modeling time (the analyses by aero have been extremely short: fractions of a microsecond, nowhere near to steady state resonance) but we never heard back from him.The computer time required for such an analysis would require significant computer resources. Certainly a few NASA centers would be able to perform such an analysis, as they have the computational resources required In this respect, the NASA Eagleworks and Dresden experiments in a vacuum chamber are most interesting because they eliminate this huge fluid mechanics analysis complication (thermal convection effects).Neither Shawyer nor Yang ever reported a single experiment performed in vacuum.
Quote from: Rodal on 12/04/2015 06:52 pmQuote from: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 06:42 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 12/04/2015 06:31 pmQuote from: Rodal on 12/04/2015 06:02 pmI think that TP here stands for "Torsional Pendulum"I wish that everybody in these threads would stop writing acronyms like TP, CoM, etc., and if they insist in doing so, they would at least be kind enough to define their acronyms upon their first occurrence in their text. :-)For example:Blah blah blah Conservation of Momentum (CoM) blah blah blah and I think that blah blah blah CoM because this is what I think, blah blah blahTo be fair, people have been using the COM and COE shorthands in this thread for a while now. When you read biology literature, you don't see "blah blah deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) blah blah and then the DNA blah" because everyone knows what the acronym is and constantly redefining it is silly. I was under the impression COM and COE were pretty well established, but apparently not. I did take me a while to figure out what TP meant though. Duh, I think I knew this once, but I've slept since then Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a horizontal balance beam negate the effects of Torsional Balance? Lift, yes, torsional forces? no.Doc, what does "Blah" stand for? QuoteBlah: used to substitute for actual words in contexts where they are felt to be too tedious or lengthy to give in fullBlah is not an acronym for anything in particular but stands for anything that can be written //////////////Concerning the EM Drive experiment in the "horizontal balance beam" as for example in your experiment, it is subject to several thermal effects, which have not been yet properly analyzed, to my knowledge. Concerning the most obvious thermal effect, the natural thermal convection, such analysis would involve a fluid mechanics study of the lift and drag vs. time effect produced by the microwave heating. There are also thermal radiation effects, etc. etc.Oops etc. is another acronym Yep...I've been anxiously awaiting (hint-hint) some analysis reporting of the September tests. It gets above my pay grade to do this so experts here on NSF volunteered to do it for me. Raw data/temps/humidy/weight was supplied a couple of months ago and although anxiously awaiting, will not rush the results. Only hint I got a couple of weeks ago that analysis is continuing and nothing obvious has yet explained the mag-on variations from thermal rise. No official results yet, but thats as far as its gotten as of today.
Quote from: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 06:42 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 12/04/2015 06:31 pmQuote from: Rodal on 12/04/2015 06:02 pmI think that TP here stands for "Torsional Pendulum"I wish that everybody in these threads would stop writing acronyms like TP, CoM, etc., and if they insist in doing so, they would at least be kind enough to define their acronyms upon their first occurrence in their text. :-)For example:Blah blah blah Conservation of Momentum (CoM) blah blah blah and I think that blah blah blah CoM because this is what I think, blah blah blahTo be fair, people have been using the COM and COE shorthands in this thread for a while now. When you read biology literature, you don't see "blah blah deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) blah blah and then the DNA blah" because everyone knows what the acronym is and constantly redefining it is silly. I was under the impression COM and COE were pretty well established, but apparently not. I did take me a while to figure out what TP meant though. Duh, I think I knew this once, but I've slept since then Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a horizontal balance beam negate the effects of Torsional Balance? Lift, yes, torsional forces? no.Doc, what does "Blah" stand for? QuoteBlah: used to substitute for actual words in contexts where they are felt to be too tedious or lengthy to give in fullBlah is not an acronym for anything in particular but stands for anything that can be written //////////////Concerning the EM Drive experiment in the "horizontal balance beam" as for example in your experiment, it is subject to several thermal effects, which have not been yet properly analyzed, to my knowledge. Concerning the most obvious thermal effect, the natural thermal convection, such analysis would involve a fluid mechanics study of the lift and drag vs. time effect produced by the microwave heating. There are also thermal radiation effects, etc. etc.Oops etc. is another acronym
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 12/04/2015 06:31 pmQuote from: Rodal on 12/04/2015 06:02 pmI think that TP here stands for "Torsional Pendulum"I wish that everybody in these threads would stop writing acronyms like TP, CoM, etc., and if they insist in doing so, they would at least be kind enough to define their acronyms upon their first occurrence in their text. :-)For example:Blah blah blah Conservation of Momentum (CoM) blah blah blah and I think that blah blah blah CoM because this is what I think, blah blah blahTo be fair, people have been using the COM and COE shorthands in this thread for a while now. When you read biology literature, you don't see "blah blah deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) blah blah and then the DNA blah" because everyone knows what the acronym is and constantly redefining it is silly. I was under the impression COM and COE were pretty well established, but apparently not. I did take me a while to figure out what TP meant though. Duh, I think I knew this once, but I've slept since then Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a horizontal balance beam negate the effects of Torsional Balance? Lift, yes, torsional forces? no.Doc, what does "Blah" stand for?
Quote from: Rodal on 12/04/2015 06:02 pmI think that TP here stands for "Torsional Pendulum"I wish that everybody in these threads would stop writing acronyms like TP, CoM, etc., and if they insist in doing so, they would at least be kind enough to define their acronyms upon their first occurrence in their text. :-)For example:Blah blah blah Conservation of Momentum (CoM) blah blah blah and I think that blah blah blah CoM because this is what I think, blah blah blahTo be fair, people have been using the COM and COE shorthands in this thread for a while now. When you read biology literature, you don't see "blah blah deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) blah blah and then the DNA blah" because everyone knows what the acronym is and constantly redefining it is silly. I was under the impression COM and COE were pretty well established, but apparently not. I did take me a while to figure out what TP meant though.
I think that TP here stands for "Torsional Pendulum"I wish that everybody in these threads would stop writing acronyms like TP, CoM, etc., and if they insist in doing so, they would at least be kind enough to define their acronyms upon their first occurrence in their text. :-)For example:Blah blah blah Conservation of Momentum (CoM) blah blah blah and I think that blah blah blah CoM because this is what I think, blah blah blah
Blah: used to substitute for actual words in contexts where they are felt to be too tedious or lengthy to give in full
Hi all.God it's been a busy week. Need to go read the responses to my proposal in a bit. Anyway, upshot is 3D printing in frustum sizes is expensive and the melting point of the material can be a consideration, even for low powered builds (project is probably $2500 in materials with significant materials limitations due to size, at an ETA of 24 months, this cost might come down considerably). That said, if for some odd reason each photon really is imparting 2 plant constants of momentum on the small end , then cutting the power and upping the Q (thus the number of photons and the work you get out of them) might be the way to go for testing.In any event, according to TheTravellers spreadsheet,Frustum big diameter m 0.29500Frustum small diameter m 0.16000Frustum centre length (curved) m 0.26468External Rf Hz 2,460,000,000with spherical endplates should have a stable resonance at TE013.I suspect I have misread how TT is measuring the spherical endplates. I took rsmall and rbig as the radius of the circle generating the endplate. I modeled the device in openscad, then realized with a little modifications the code could generate a frustum and endplates of any size. Also note that to get usable parts, I think you're going to have to up the resolution to 1000 or higher. The render times at those resolutions are going to be considerable. Also, somebody with a better CAD programs should probably check to make sure I didn't make any errors when I did these.All that said, here are the files that will hopefully be of use to somebody doing a digitally assisted build.
...Dr. Rodal - I uploaded these progressively longer runs of the Yang-Shell 6 degree model just about the time than you went dark. I did notify you but have no indication that you received my notification, so I repeat it here. The csv data is here. Please read the data description there.https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharingThese runs range in length from 32 cycles to 2048 cycles of the drive frequency. That is not a long time, I guess something like 2048cycles/2.45 GHz, or close to a microsecond of simulated time, but something like 2 days wall clock time for each of the 2048 cycle runs. On the other current subject, I did modify the copper conductance model after seeing the same information from you and three other sources, two of which you linked. The model code now reads as.(material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))where epdilon_r = 1 numerical value of CU-D-conduct is: (printed from a run log file) CU-D-conduct = 43393352.18305066old-CU-conduct= 4904277351.366935 ratio of new over old = 0.008848062430840282As I gain some meep experience in working with this new copper model, Shell will know and I'm sure data will be posted. As for now I have learned that it cuts Q a lot and Q is strongly dependent on meep resolution with this new model, not in the same way as for the older models. The other data hinted at is ... Well as I've only ran one cavity case, cylindrical at that, I should keep my suspicions under my hat until I have at least some confirmation.And if that is not the correct numerical value as you understand it, please tell me promptly. A simple "still not right, aero" would have me double checking again though the correct numerical value would be helpful. Rest assured, I will not change the model until I satisfy myself that it needs to be changed.
Quote from: glennfish on 12/05/2015 12:23 am...With all due respect, I think you're in left field here.AAAS Science is on the same par as Nature. Those are the #1 and #2 journals on this planet. Stating that sociology and evolution and ecology is not on par with physics isn't an argument, it's a theology. Which two journals on this planet published the first human genome? Is that not something on par with physics or is biology a "soft" science of little repute?I'm sure you can cite many other journals of repute and I won't refute that, but a publication in either of these has significant peer review and strenuous editorial standards that can't be ignored unless retracted. My point here is that you're trying to hold NON professional science to the same standards as professional science, when professional science has its own publication problems with negative reporting.Since there is no reputable "EM Journal", IMHO you are way off base demanding "NEGATIVE" reports when reputable journals have exactly the same problem.Dragging in the historical disaster of cold fusion as a refutation is also off base.You want the NON professional folks to publish negative results as a baseline? That would be great!!! But it doesn't happen in the professional science literature either.EM folks can be criticized legitimately for many many reasons, but this argument of yours is off the wall.Sorry.I respect you and your input, but this argument just doesn't work.Instead of unfairly fabricating a straw argument: unfairly portraying me as disparaging Science magazine. please point out the specific article you are referring to in Science that you claim was stating that negative results in physical experiments are discouraged in Physic journals (as opposed to other disciplines). Instead of writing generalities please disclose the specific article(s) and show that it pertains to the subject at hand: experiments in Physics, rather than Life Sciences (as I do read Science magazine, and the articles I remember concerning negative results pertained to the Life Sciences instead).____________________PS: Also I noticed that you still fail to admit (or understand) the point of my post which was that negative results in EM Drive experiments should be encouraged to be disclosed in these threads.
...I am not a physicist. I will not and cannot argue anything in that domain.I absolutely agree that negative reports should be published and available, of course other than JIR, where do they publish them? This is an unfair request IMHO,My point simply is that "ALL" peer reviewed journals do not like negative or "null" publications. "Physics" journals are not immune or vaccinated. MY position is that while EM may be crap, demanding more from them than is demanded from physicists is simply not fair.Negative results should absolutely be reported.References... provided you have the login permissions. If not I will download and make available. Just a sampling.http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6207/308.2.full.pdf?sid=299345a4-f312-42c7-b5e1-4d843d4d0c30http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6203/1502.full.pdf?sid=299345a4-f312-42c7-b5e1-4d843d4d0c30http://www.aaas.org/news/basic-research-often-mocked-targeted-budget-cuts-due-lack-public-understandingNaturehttp://www.nature.com/jcbfm/journal/v30/n7/full/jcbfm201051a.htmlnon aaas reportshttps://www.elsevier.com/connect/scientists-we-want-your-negative-results-toohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woozle_effecthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_result#Scientific_journals_for_null_resultshttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9909033http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~gfrancis/Publications/GFrancis-R1.pdfI'll provide more if you wish after my wife is done serving dinner.
Negative results should absolutely be reported
We agree on this. Peace
Quote from: aero on 12/05/2015 01:10 am...Dr. Rodal - I uploaded these progressively longer runs of the Yang-Shell 6 degree model just about the time than you went dark. I did notify you but have no indication that you received my notification, so I repeat it here. The csv data is here. Please read the data description there.https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharingThese runs range in length from 32 cycles to 2048 cycles of the drive frequency. That is not a long time, I guess something like 2048cycles/2.45 GHz, or close to a microsecond of simulated time, but something like 2 days wall clock time for each of the 2048 cycle runs. On the other current subject, I did modify the copper conductance model after seeing the same information from you and three other sources, two of which you linked. The model code now reads as.(material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))where epdilon_r = 1 numerical value of CU-D-conduct is: (printed from a run log file) CU-D-conduct = 43393352.18305066old-CU-conduct= 4904277351.366935 ratio of new over old = 0.008848062430840282As I gain some meep experience in working with this new copper model, Shell will know and I'm sure data will be posted. As for now I have learned that it cuts Q a lot and Q is strongly dependent on meep resolution with this new model, not in the same way as for the older models. The other data hinted at is ... Well as I've only ran one cavity case, cylindrical at that, I should keep my suspicions under my hat until I have at least some confirmation.And if that is not the correct numerical value as you understand it, please tell me promptly. A simple "still not right, aero" would have me double checking again though the correct numerical value would be helpful. Rest assured, I will not change the model until I satisfy myself that it needs to be changed.Thanks, that is the correct ratio of new to old conductivity: 0.0088480= 1/113.019...The new one should be 113.019 times lower.Remember that this is for high-content copper, as intended by DeltaMass.Other materials (silver, brass, gold, etc.) need to be ratioed by their corresponding conductivities (or their inverse, resistivities).
Quote from: Rodal on 12/05/2015 01:17 amQuote from: aero on 12/05/2015 01:10 am...Dr. Rodal - I uploaded these progressively longer runs of the Yang-Shell 6 degree model just about the time than you went dark. I did notify you but have no indication that you received my notification, so I repeat it here. The csv data is here. Please read the data description there.https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharingThese runs range in length from 32 cycles to 2048 cycles of the drive frequency. That is not a long time, I guess something like 2048cycles/2.45 GHz, or close to a microsecond of simulated time, but something like 2 days wall clock time for each of the 2048 cycle runs. On the other current subject, I did modify the copper conductance model after seeing the same information from you and three other sources, two of which you linked. The model code now reads as.(material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))where epdilon_r = 1 numerical value of CU-D-conduct is: (printed from a run log file) CU-D-conduct = 43393352.18305066old-CU-conduct= 4904277351.366935 ratio of new over old = 0.008848062430840282As I gain some meep experience in working with this new copper model, Shell will know and I'm sure data will be posted. As for now I have learned that it cuts Q a lot and Q is strongly dependent on meep resolution with this new model, not in the same way as for the older models. The other data hinted at is ... Well as I've only ran one cavity case, cylindrical at that, I should keep my suspicions under my hat until I have at least some confirmation.And if that is not the correct numerical value as you understand it, please tell me promptly. A simple "still not right, aero" would have me double checking again though the correct numerical value would be helpful. Rest assured, I will not change the model until I satisfy myself that it needs to be changed.Thanks, that is the correct ratio of new to old conductivity: 0.0088480= 1/113.019...The new one should be 113.019 times lower.Remember that this is for high-content copper, as intended by DeltaMass.Other materials (silver, brass, gold, etc.) need to be ratioed by their corresponding conductivities (or their inverse, resistivities).Ok, here is a very nice data set of conductivities/resistivities:http://eddy-current.com/conductivity-of-metals-sorted-by-resistivity/DeltaMass' conductivity number was 3.25E+8 determined from considerations of the electron cloud, as I recall. As Murphy would dictate, that number does not appear in this data list. I can search further but I think it is safe to assume that 3.25E+8 will not appear elsewhere exactly. What is the recommended way to adjust ratios to maintain consistency, or would it be less complex to simply use the meep units conversion wiki, as I did for this modification?aero
Quote from: aero on 12/05/2015 02:23 amQuote from: Rodal on 12/05/2015 01:17 amQuote from: aero on 12/05/2015 01:10 am...Dr. Rodal - I uploaded these progressively longer runs of the Yang-Shell 6 degree model just about the time than you went dark. I did notify you but have no indication that you received my notification, so I repeat it here. The csv data is here. Please read the data description there.https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1XizxEfB23tRm41bVFtM1pVYlU&usp=sharingThese runs range in length from 32 cycles to 2048 cycles of the drive frequency. That is not a long time, I guess something like 2048cycles/2.45 GHz, or close to a microsecond of simulated time, but something like 2 days wall clock time for each of the 2048 cycle runs. On the other current subject, I did modify the copper conductance model after seeing the same information from you and three other sources, two of which you linked. The model code now reads as.(material (make medium (epsilon epsilon_r) (D-conductivity CU-D-conduct)))where epdilon_r = 1 numerical value of CU-D-conduct is: (printed from a run log file) CU-D-conduct = 43393352.18305066old-CU-conduct= 4904277351.366935 ratio of new over old = 0.008848062430840282As I gain some meep experience in working with this new copper model, Shell will know and I'm sure data will be posted. As for now I have learned that it cuts Q a lot and Q is strongly dependent on meep resolution with this new model, not in the same way as for the older models. The other data hinted at is ... Well as I've only ran one cavity case, cylindrical at that, I should keep my suspicions under my hat until I have at least some confirmation.And if that is not the correct numerical value as you understand it, please tell me promptly. A simple "still not right, aero" would have me double checking again though the correct numerical value would be helpful. Rest assured, I will not change the model until I satisfy myself that it needs to be changed.Thanks, that is the correct ratio of new to old conductivity: 0.0088480= 1/113.019...The new one should be 113.019 times lower.Remember that this is for high-content copper, as intended by DeltaMass.Other materials (silver, brass, gold, etc.) need to be ratioed by their corresponding conductivities (or their inverse, resistivities).Ok, here is a very nice data set of conductivities/resistivities:http://eddy-current.com/conductivity-of-metals-sorted-by-resistivity/DeltaMass' conductivity number was 3.25E+8 determined from considerations of the electron cloud, as I recall. As Murphy would dictate, that number does not appear in this data list. I can search further but I think it is safe to assume that 3.25E+8 will not appear elsewhere exactly. What is the recommended way to adjust ratios to maintain consistency, or would it be less complex to simply use the meep units conversion wiki, as I did for this modification?aeroNo !. 3.25E+8 was not the conductivity. 3.25E+8 is the number in SI units that corresponds to the expression used in Meep: it is not the conductivity, it is instead the imaginary part of the relative complex permittivityTherefore 3.25E+8 corresponds instead to epsilon"/epsilon_o = 0.00288/epsilon_o(The number really is 3.252698....E+8)The numerical value of the imaginary part of the permittivity: epsilon"=0.00288 was given by DeltaMassThe conductivity in SI Units that corresponds to epsilon"=0.00288 is:conductivity = omega * epsilon" = 2 Pi frequency 0.00288 = 2 Pi 2.4E+9 * 0.00288 = 4.342937 E+7which is almost 10 times smaller than 3.25E+8Please also recall that DeltaMass was conscious that it is incorrect to take 0.00288 as a constant !That value is a function of frequency.What is approximately constant in this regime is the conductivity itself.DeltaMass gave you explicit instructions to keep the conductivity constant, at other frequencies: for example, the conductivity at 1 GHz is also 4.342937 E+7, so at 1 GHz you should input into Meep (3.25...E+8 ) *2.4 = 7.8 E+8, for example
"NEGATIVE experimental results are under-reported or not reported at all. Negative results at a University (by Zellerium) is not even reported in the EM Drive wiki ( http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results ), the last time that I checked. Several experimenters that started to report their build up, stopped reporting and are practically unheard of. At least one of the experimenters asked -in these threads- not to report the negative experimental results.An effort has to be made to report and properly document ALL NEGATIVE resultsAn effort has to be made to be objective."Certainly worth repeating. I did ask an experimenter if this could be labeled Null. Believe this is what you are referring to. I videotaped and posted 2 or 3 flight tests I considered Null before FT#2B and reconfirmed displacement changes in FT#2C, So 3 of 5 flight tests were Null on NSF-1701. I only documented the last one on the wiki page.
//GNU Public License//Operating frequency 2,460,000,000 hz//Center Length 0.26468//Big Diameter 0.29500//Small Diameter 0.1600{//enter dimensions in meters length = 0.26468;bigbase = 0.29500;smallbase = 0.1600;$fn=100; //desired resolutiontolerance = 0.5; //the tolerance of the 3d printing method (used for small endplate join) in mmthickness = 3; // minimum desired thickness in your printing method in mmminattach = 10; //the minimum size in mm of the smallest part of the attachment square//machine variablesbigrad = ((bigbase * 1000) / 2);smallrad = ((smallbase * 1000) / 2);leng = (length * 1000);ma = minattach *2;module frustum (){difference (){cylinder(h= leng, r1=(smallrad +thickness), r2=(bigrad + thickness), center=true);cylinder(h=(leng +0.5), r1=(smallrad + tolerance), r2=bigrad, center=true);//leng + 0.5 is to insure a clean cut//The second cylinder is the inside dimns of the frustum}}module smallattach(){difference(){cube ([(smallrad * 2 + ma), (smallrad * 2 + ma), thickness],center=true); cylinder (h=(thickness + 0.25), r1=(smallrad+thickness/2), r2 = (smallrad+thickness/2), center=true);} };module bigattach(){ difference(){cube ([(bigrad *2 + ma), (bigrad * 2 + ma), thickness],center=true); cylinder (h=3.25, r1=(bigrad + thickness/2), r2=(bigrad + thickness/2), center=true); } }// Not sure leaving flat connectors to later drill for screws is a good idea.union(){frustum ();translate([0, 0, ((-(leng/2))+(thickness/2))]) smallattach(); translate([0, 0, ((leng/2)-thickness/2)]) bigattach();}//I'm telling it to move the midpoint to half the height of the frustum. That means there is 1.5mm of connector width hanging over the end. I then move it the connector to account for this. Suggest doing a test run of just this area to validate my logic. }
//For small endplate only// GNU Public Licensediam = 0.1600; //diameter of chorde in metersradiusofsphere = .31370; //radius of sphere from which small base is derived bigger numbers = rounderthickness = 3; //minthickness of 3d printing materialcnctmin = 10; //minimum number of mm of smallest part of square connector$fn = 100; //resolution, suggest high for endplades, note this number may need to be very large (over 500). Smaller number right now due to processor limitations.//machine variablesdiameter = diam * 1000;radsphere = radiusofsphere * 1000;height = radsphere - sqrt(radsphere*radsphere-((diameter*diameter)/4));module smallcap(){difference(){sphere (r=radsphere, center = true); sphere (r=(radsphere-thickness), center = true); translate([0,0, height]) cube ([(radsphere * 2 + cnctmin), (radsphere * 2 + cnctmin),(radsphere* 2)], center = true); }}module smallat(){difference(){cube ([(diameter + cnctmin), (diameter + cnctmin), thickness],center=true); cylinder (h=(thickness+.1), r1=(diameter/2-thickness*3), r2=(diameter/2-thickness*3), center=true); }}//Bring center up by radius of sphere, down by height of endcap, then down by 1.5 to compensate for being centered a 0 line with a width of 3mm.union(){translate ([0, 0, (radsphere-height-(thickness/2))]) smallcap();smallat();}
//For big endplate only// GNU Public Licensediam = 0.295; //diameter of chorde in metersradiusofsphere = .57838; //radius of sphere from which small base is derived bigger numbers = rounderthickness = 3; //minthickness of 3d printing materialcnctmin = 10; //minimum number of mm of smallest part of square connector$fn = 500; //resolution, suggest high for endplades, note this number may need to be very large (over 500). Smaller number right now due to processor limitations.//machine variablesdiameter = diam * 1000;radsphere = radiusofsphere * 1000;height = radsphere - sqrt(radsphere*radsphere-((diameter*diameter)/4));module smallcap(){difference(){sphere (r=radsphere+thickness, center = true); sphere (r=(radsphere), center = true); translate([0,0, height]) cube ([(radsphere * 2 + cnctmin), (radsphere * 2 + cnctmin),(radsphere* 2 + thickness)], center = true); }}module smallat(){difference(){cube ([(diameter + cnctmin), (diameter + cnctmin), thickness],center=true); cylinder (h=(thickness+.1), r1=(diameter/2-thickness*3), r2=(diameter/2-thickness*3), center=true); }}//Note minus thickness on big endplate. The connector has to be level with the edge of the circle.union(){translate ([0, 0, (radsphere-height+thickness/2)]) smallcap();smallat();}
Quote from: rfmwguy on 12/04/2015 07:39 pm"NEGATIVE experimental results are under-reported or not reported at all. Negative results at a University (by Zellerium) is not even reported in the EM Drive wiki ( http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results ), the last time that I checked. Several experimenters that started to report their build up, stopped reporting and are practically unheard of. At least one of the experimenters asked -in these threads- not to report the negative experimental results.An effort has to be made to report and properly document ALL NEGATIVE resultsAn effort has to be made to be objective."Certainly worth repeating. I did ask an experimenter if this could be labeled Null. Believe this is what you are referring to. I videotaped and posted 2 or 3 flight tests I considered Null before FT#2B and reconfirmed displacement changes in FT#2C, So 3 of 5 flight tests were Null on NSF-1701. I only documented the last one on the wiki page.Didn't Zellerium say he was getting something with a frustum, null with cylindrical and that he was discontinueing as he didn't think he could finish prior to his expected graduation date, and was doing this as a senior project?I really wish we could get a better analysis of FT 1. Would really like to see if having the rf feed on the small base produced a null (and since most of the heat is coming off the magnetron housing a large different between 1 and later tests would help rule out thermal currents as the source of thrust).
