-
#1120
by
oyzw
on 02 Jan, 2016 06:20
-
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a18801/3d-printed-wonder-ceramics-wont-shatter/
I want a FRUSTUM from this!
Shell
Yes, let's see if this process can be adapted for YBCO! But for now, I am going to keep my eyes on MgB2. For the time being, it's only my eyes, as I can't get my hands on any until my money arrives...which should be soon!
I have a friend who is a high temperature superconducting engineer, has been promoting his design of YBCO thin film resonator
Can you tell us more? YBCO looks very difficult to fabricate with the dimensions and smoothness we require.
On the soft base is to use laser deposited YBCO, then spread within the cavity, tin welding cracks
-
#1121
by
R.W. Keyes
on 02 Jan, 2016 06:49
-
MEEP and EM Sim people,
So I decided to go ahead and get GSVit (GPU accelerated simulations) working on the AWS cloud, partially just because of my own curiosity. It took a bit more work than I anticipated, but I did finally get their benchmarks done and I thought it would be worth sharing:
The machine I was using was a very powerful 8 Core Xenon with a very high end NVIDIA GPU. The benchmark compared all cores of the processors vs the GPU. What I found was that with a processor of this speed and cores, the GPU acceleration was not as extreme as I had hoped. The benchmarks went through a variety of materials, but for most, it was in the 5x to 10x range when comparing GPU to all cores. There were a few materials where the speedup was drastic, but for the most part, it disappointed me some. Also, just for the record, when comparing to a single core, it did give about a 40x speed bump, so their quoted numbers were not deceptive. If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to share the exact numbers or the VirtualBox image for the non-GPU version. I also have a public AMI up on AWS at the moment if you search for GSVit.
- David
Yes, I am interested. I'll look for GSVit after sunrise.
-
#1122
by
Mulletron
on 02 Jan, 2016 10:58
-
I think I may have figured out a way to increase thrust. It involves resonating sound waves within the cavity simultaneously with the rf.
I've been thinking about the matter inside the cavity for a while now and about how thrust seems to disappear in vacuum or when the dielectric insert was removed as reported by EW. Lots of microscopic effects have been considered, like Casimir momentum, magnetoelectric anisotropies, and lately gravitomagnetism. None appear capable of generating or explaining macroscopic forces.
Lately I've been focused on just the type 3 cavity and really thinking hard about all of the properties of the air and why it seems important to thrust (Shawyer did away with the dielectric). It must be the related to the collective natural motion of the molecules in the cavity, but perturbed by some still unknown method. No doubt, that if the reports of thrust are not due to some artifact, there must be an explanation; maybe even one of the above. I don't know what could be behind the thrust with any certainty. What I'm proposing with the sound is (in my view) agnostic to the underlying thrust mechanism. It is simply adding energy to the system. If an anisotropy is present, I believe this may be a way to expose it by bringing forces up to a measurable level.
-
#1123
by
oyzw
on 02 Jan, 2016 11:21
-
I think I may have figured out a way to increase thrust. It involves resonating sound waves within the cavity simultaneously with the rf.
I've been thinking about the matter inside the cavity for a while now and about how thrust seems to disappear in vacuum or when the dielectric insert was removed as reported by EW. Lots of microscopic effects have been considered, like Casimir momentum, magnetoelectric anisotropies, and lately gravitomagnetism. None appear capable of generating or explaining macroscopic forces.
Lately I've been focused on just the type 3 cavity and really thinking hard about all of the properties of the air and why it seems important to thrust (Shawyer did away with the dielectric). It must be the related to the collective natural motion of the molecules in the cavity, but perturbed by some still unknown method. No doubt, that if the reports of thrust are not due to some artifact, there must be an explanation; maybe even one of the above. I don't know what could be behind the thrust with any certainty. What I'm proposing with the sound is (in my view) agnostic to the underlying thrust mechanism. It is simply adding energy to the system. If an anisotropy is present, I believe this may be a way to expose it by bringing forces up to a measurable level.
The thrust seems to disappear in vacuum or when the dielectric insert was removed as reported by EW？？？
-
#1124
by
Mulletron
on 02 Jan, 2016 11:29
-
EW reported no thrust when the dielectric was removed. Thrust was greatly diminished when they tested under vacuum.
-
#1125
by
oyzw
on 02 Jan, 2016 12:27
-
EW reported no thrust when the dielectric was removed. Thrust was greatly diminished when they tested under vacuum.
Can you provide EW data or a link?
-
#1126
by
Mulletron
on 02 Jan, 2016 12:37
-
Just see posts from Star-Drive.
-
#1127
by
oyzw
on 02 Jan, 2016 12:48
-
Just see posts from Star-Drive.
Sorry, I can't find the data, can you give a link
-
#1128
by
Rodal
on 02 Jan, 2016 13:01
-
-
#1129
by
OnlyMe
on 02 Jan, 2016 13:02
-
Just see posts from Star-Drive.
Sorry, I can't find the data, can you give a link
Paul March posts under the screen name Star-Drive. There were several posts back in Thread 5 and earlier. One post you could look up is Thread 5 page 41 post 805.
Once you find a post, use the link to his profile page and then the link at the left to show posts.
-
#1130
by
TheTraveller
on 02 Jan, 2016 13:03
-
-
#1131
by
graybeardsyseng
on 02 Jan, 2016 13:09
-
I think I may have figured out a way to increase thrust. It involves resonating sound waves within the cavity simultaneously with the rf.
I've been thinking about the matter inside the cavity for a while now and about how thrust seems to disappear in vacuum or when the dielectric insert was removed as reported by EW. Lots of microscopic effects have been considered, like Casimir momentum, magnetoelectric anisotropies, and lately gravitomagnetism. None appear capable of generating or explaining macroscopic forces.
Lately I've been focused on just the type 3 cavity and really thinking hard about all of the properties of the air and why it seems important to thrust (Shawyer did away with the dielectric). It must be the related to the collective natural motion of the molecules in the cavity, but perturbed by some still unknown method. No doubt, that if the reports of thrust are not due to some artifact, there must be an explanation; maybe even one of the above. I don't know what could be behind the thrust with any certainty. What I'm proposing with the sound is (in my view) agnostic to the underlying thrust mechanism. It is simply adding energy to the system. If an anisotropy is present, I believe this may be a way to expose it by bringing forces up to a measurable level.
Seriously interesting and thought provoking - nice " outside the cavity thinking"LOL! Early in morning here but the mind is wondering about a lot of factors. I vaguely recall (and haven't had time for a search yet) of some discussion a thread or so back on the idea of evacuating the cavity - IIRC this was during some discussion of vacuum vs in atmo testing and the idea of vacuum in the cavity was discussed. I don't recall who's idea it was or if such a test was ever done but results might be - to quote a fictional space drive expert - fascinating.
The idea of a coupling between matter in the cavity (air or other dielectric) and the rf energy opens up a wide area for some testing. Freq of RF, mechanical vibration modes of the material etc. Then adding sound as perhaps an exciter or perhaps providing some sort of resonance coupling or tuning.
Need some noodling on this one. One concept - if sound was right frequency perhaps it could lead to some level of stratification of the dielectric and perhaps from that a tuning effect. Must research stratified dielectrics.
Herman
-
#1132
by
DnA915
on 02 Jan, 2016 14:00
-
MEEP and EM Sim people,
So I decided to go ahead and get GSVit (GPU accelerated simulations) working on the AWS cloud, partially just because of my own curiosity. It took a bit more work than I anticipated, but I did finally get their benchmarks done and I thought it would be worth sharing:
The machine I was using was a very powerful 8 Core Xenon with a very high end NVIDIA GPU. The benchmark compared all cores of the processors vs the GPU. What I found was that with a processor of this speed and cores, the GPU acceleration was not as extreme as I had hoped. The benchmarks went through a variety of materials, but for most, it was in the 5x to 10x range when comparing GPU to all cores. There were a few materials where the speedup was drastic, but for the most part, it disappointed me some. Also, just for the record, when comparing to a single core, it did give about a 40x speed bump, so their quoted numbers were not deceptive. If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to share the exact numbers or the VirtualBox image for the non-GPU version. I also have a public AMI up on AWS at the moment if you search for GSVit.
- David
Yes, I am interested. I'll look for GSVit after sunrise.
Keep in mind that you'll need to launch a more expensive g2 instance if you want GPU acceleration. In my tests, the more expensive 32 core, quad graphics card (about $2.60 an hour) was not worth it as it was not much faster than the 60 cents an hour model with 8 cores and 1 GPU. One thing I have noted doing these multi-threading experiments on my own computer with 12 cores, is that the speedup many time plateaus before using all cores. I'm guessing this is due to cross memory access between the physical CPU's. I'd guess with higher end (read more expensive) software, the isolation of the different threads might be better done so that you get more efficient multi-threading. Let me know if you'd like my VirtualBox image to test locally and let me know if you find out anything interesting! Thanks!
- David
-
#1133
by
oyzw
on 02 Jan, 2016 14:04
-
....
For me as an engineer, what matters is resonance / mode prediction matches reality. I have yet to be shown a VNA scan from a non dielectric frustum that I can't determine the mode and resonance with high accuracy.
As example the frustum of Oyzw was analysed. TE013 resonance was predicted at 2.53 GHz. His VNA measured resonance at 2.54 - 2.55 GHz. Fairly close.
Would invite you to do the same analysis and post the resonance calculated.
If you try to create doubt about my tools, be ready to show you can do better.
Fair?
Mould processing little error was inevitably
-
#1134
by
oyzw
on 02 Jan, 2016 14:13
-
....
For me as an engineer, what matters is resonance / mode prediction matches reality. I have yet to be shown a VNA scan from a non dielectric frustum that I can't determine the mode and resonance with high accuracy.
As example the frustum of Oyzw was analysed. TE013 resonance was predicted at 2.53 GHz. His VNA measured resonance at 2.54 - 2.55 GHz. Fairly close.
Would invite you to do the same analysis and post the resonance calculated.
If you try to create doubt about my tools, be ready to show you can do better.
Fair?
The comparison should be made for the 2014 NASA test in question: use TheTraveller's spreadsheet for this case (which is the one being questioned) and compare vs. SuperFish, COMSOL, ANSYS, or whatever other program oyzw is using.
Stop changing the challenge.
Show your TE013 resonance freq for Qyzw's frustum, where he knows the measured TE013 resonance freq or stop questioning what others can do and you apparently can't.
My data matches measured reality. Can you do that or not?
A few HFSS simulation data
-
#1135
by
oyzw
on 02 Jan, 2016 14:22
-
....
For me as an engineer, what matters is resonance / mode prediction matches reality. I have yet to be shown a VNA scan from a non dielectric frustum that I can't determine the mode and resonance with high accuracy.
As example the frustum of Oyzw was analysed. TE013 resonance was predicted at 2.53 GHz. His VNA measured resonance at 2.54 - 2.55 GHz. Fairly close.
Would invite you to do the same analysis and post the resonance calculated.
If you try to create doubt about my tools, be ready to show you can do better.
Fair?
The comparison should be made for the 2014 NASA test in question: use TheTraveller's spreadsheet for this case (which is the one being questioned) and compare vs. SuperFish, COMSOL, ANSYS, or whatever other program oyzw is using.
Stop changing the challenge.
Show your TE013 resonance freq for Qyzw's frustum, where he knows the measured TE013 resonance freq or stop questioning what others can do and you apparently can't.
My data matches measured reality. Can you do that or not?
A few HFSS simulation data
None of those example dimensions match your frustum dimensions.
They are all TE013！！！Considering the reduced volume, reduce processing costs, I finally adopt this：
-
#1136
by
X_RaY
on 02 Jan, 2016 14:34
-
....
For me as an engineer, what matters is resonance / mode prediction matches reality. I have yet to be shown a VNA scan from a non dielectric frustum that I can't determine the mode and resonance with high accuracy.
As example the frustum of Oyzw was analysed. TE013 resonance was predicted at 2.53 GHz. His VNA measured resonance at 2.54 - 2.55 GHz. Fairly close.
Would invite you to do the same analysis and post the resonance calculated.
If you try to create doubt about my tools, be ready to show you can do better.
Fair?
The comparison should be made for the 2014 NASA test in question: use TheTraveller's spreadsheet for this case (which is the one being questioned) and compare vs. SuperFish, COMSOL, ANSYS, or whatever other program oyzw is using.
Stop changing the challenge.
Show your TE013 resonance freq for Qyzw's frustum, where he knows the measured TE013 resonance freq or stop questioning what others can do and you apparently can't.
My data matches measured reality. Can you do that or not?
A few HFSS simulation data
None of those example dimensions match your frustum dimensions.
They are all TE013！！！Considering the reduced volume, reduce processing costs, I finally adopt this：
My own simple spreadsheet tells me TE013 @ 2.541 GHz for this dimensions (SD=160mm; BD=296mm; L=235mm; flat end plates)
(or 2.491 GHz for SD=170 mm; BD=290mm; L=240mm instead of the 2.5092 GHz HFSS M1.jpg
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1468661#msg1468661)
Rodal is absolutely right, based on the spreadsheet it's not possible to predict the mixed mode shape eigenresonances as long as it is based on calculation methods for cylindrical cavities.
At a first step a spreadsheet is useful, nevertheless its crude approximation in comparison with FDTD/FEM.
-
#1137
by
oyzw
on 02 Jan, 2016 15:03
-
Everyone has seen this patent?
-
#1138
by
Rodal
on 02 Jan, 2016 15:05
-
Everyone has seen this patent?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39004.0;attach=1091319
Yes, I have seen that document but notice:
(bold added for emphasis)
An electromagnetic thrusting system comprising:
an axially-asymmetric resonant cavity including a conductive inner surface, the resonant cavity adapted to support a standing electromagnetic (EM) wave therein, the standing EM wave having an oscillating electric field vector defining a z-axis of the resonant cavity;
wherein the resonating cavity lacks 2nd-axis axial symmetry, and
wherein the standing EM wave induces a net unidirectional force on the resonant cavity
1) It is
not a patent yet, it is only an
application according to the attached document. Applications need to get approved by the Patent Office to be able to be enforceable patents.
2) Claims are dependent on several "whereins"including " lacks 2nd-axis axial symmetry" and " the standing EM wave induces a net unidirectional force on the resonant cavity". Wonder whether the Patent Office may question the "wherein" in the first claim, for example, that "wherein the standing EM wave induces a net unidirectional force on the resonant cavity" as written in the claim to be overly broad and dependent on Nature rather than design, because whether that occurs wherein or not should be ruled by Nature. Seems to me that it could be questioned on the basis that the claim should make explicit a design that will impose such unidirectional force rather than stating that the claim is dependent on "wherein the standing EM wave induces a net unidirectional force on the resonant cavity" (of course this should be up to Patent Lawyers to decide). (*)
3) There is also the issue of Shawyer's prior art of course, vis-a-vis this application, and whether this application distinguishes itself enough from Shawyer's prior art, such that it was not obvious to somebody skilled in the art and hence knowledgeable of Shawyer's published prior art.
______
(*) Case in point, could the Patent Office approve different applications stating "wherein the speed exceeds the speed of light" or "wherein the energy output exceeds the energy input" ?, whereins that are ruled (and constrained) by Nature ?
The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable.
-
#1139
by
OnlyMe
on 02 Jan, 2016 15:11
-
This is a very custom design job. A very rough sketch of my design is attached.
This design needs no circulator and Rf dummy load as the real time Rf environment is monitored at least 100 times a second and will never allow the Rf amp to be over stressed. Rf power is programmed from approx 200mW to 100W with real time Forward and Reflected power feedback. If reflected power exceeds programmed limits, power output levels are dropped back in real time.
I am envy of your RF amp. What is it? Who makes them?
Also, what are you using the 3 way splitter for? Just to excite 3 separate loops at the same time?
@ TT - I second the question re: your RF amp.
