-
#1260 by FattyLumpkin on 15 Apr, 2016 10:00
-
? FROM EM to Q? Well, so, I had to free-hand the Cannae. All frustum volumes +/- the same save the Q thruster (it's all off) waaaa!
-
#1261 by SeeShells on 15 Apr, 2016 11:47
-
I wonder if Cannae will be getting a couple of phone calls?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies
Shell -
#1262 by Monomorphic on 15 Apr, 2016 11:47
-
Some quick sims of stacked emdrives before heading out to dinner. My dims (TE311), different size holes between frustums, and far right using square waveguide.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1403569#msg1403569
Nice to see a simulation of such a structure.
Where do you think I got the idea from?
-
#1263 by Rodal on 15 Apr, 2016 11:54
-
Among all these posts about Cannae's website it is useful to remember that, since this is NASA Spaceflight.com , after alll:
1) There was no thrust measured by NASA without a dielectric insert in the Cannae drive.
2) NASA's computer modeling of the electric field within Cannae's pillbox and beam pipe (using COMSOL Multiphysics® software) illustrates the relative weakness of the electric field in the Cannae pillbox (the flying-saucer shaped cavity) and relative strength of the electric field within the beam pipe, especially in the drive antenna coaxial cable and the region around the cable. NASA's COMSOL analysis shows that the important part is not the flying saucer shape of the Cannae drive, but it is instead the small diameter pipe (where the dielectric insert is contained) connecting to the center of the flying-saucer shape cavity.
3) Guido Fetta's new World Patent (World Intellectual Property Organization) application Electromagnetic thrusting system WO 2016004044 A1 (Filing date Jun 30, 2015) http://www.google.com/patents/WO2016004044A1?cl=en explicitly includes a dielectric in its claims, starting with claim 1:Quotethe waveguide including a dielectric material positioned to extend in a direction of the wave axis along a portion of the waveguide
while his original US patent application Electromagnetic thruster US 20140013724 A1 (Filing date Mar 22, 2012) did not contain a reference to a dielectric insert. This inclusion of the dielectric in the patent claims follows NASA's 2014 report:
Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum
David A. Brady*, Harold G. White†, Paul March‡, James T. Lawrence§, and Frank J. Davies
Joint Propulsion Conference
July 28-30, 2014, Cleveland, OH
AIAA 2014-4029
50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Propulsion and Energy Forum
This material was declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
-
#1264 by SeeShells on 15 Apr, 2016 12:49
-
Among all these posts about Cannae's website it is useful to remember that, since this is NASA Spaceflight.com , after alll:
1) NASA's testing of Cannae's drive that resulted in a measurable anomalous force needed the presence of a dielectric insert in the pipe connecting to the flying-saucer shaped device. There was no thrust measured by NASA without a dielectric insert in the Cannae drive.
2) NASA's computer modeling of the electric field within the pillbox and beam pipe (using COMSOL Multiphysics® software) illustrates the relative weakness of the electric field in the vicinity of the cavity slots and relative strength of the electric field within the beam pipe, especially in the drive antenna coaxial cable and the region around the cable. NASA's COMSOL analysis shows that the important part is not the flying saucer shape of the Cannae drive, but it is instead the small diameter pipe (where the dielectric insert is contained) connecting to the center of the flying-saucer shape cavity.
3) Guido Fetta's new World Patent (World Intellectual Property Organization) application Electromagnetic thrusting system WO 2016004044 A1 (Filing date Jun 30, 2015) http://www.google.com/patents/WO2016004044A1?cl=en explicitly includes a dielectric in its claims, starting with claim 1:Quotethe waveguide including a dielectric material positioned to extend in a direction of the wave axis along a portion of the waveguide
while his original US patent application Electromagnetic thruster US 20140013724 A1 (Filing date Mar 22, 2012) did not contain a reference to a dielectric insert. This inclusion of the dielectric in the patent claims follows NASA's 2014 report:
Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum
David A. Brady*, Harold G. White†, Paul March‡, James T. Lawrence§, and Frank J. Davies
Joint Propulsion Conference
July 28-30, 2014, Cleveland, OH
AIAA 2014-4029
This material was declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Propulsion and Energy Forum
You know me by now, looking at thing a little differently and I'm looking at this differently as well.
If we are to consider the the energy within this cavity where the highest levels exist you're correct, it's in the spindle section versus the pancake section, although I would like you to consider the total amount of energy present for a the given volumes in the spindle and the pancake.
A very rough calculation is showing that >150 times greater energy levels exists per volume in the area of the pancake section versus the spindle, even though you do have a peak in the spindle area.
Food for thought.
Shell -
#1265 by Rodal on 15 Apr, 2016 12:53
-
...
You know me by now, looking at thing a little differently and I'm looking at this differently as well.
If we are to consider the the energy within this cavity where the highest levels exist you're correct, it's in the spindle section versus the pancake section, although I would like you to consider the total amount of energy present for a the given volumes in the spindle and the pancake.
A very rough calculation is showing that >150 times greater energy levels exists per volume in the area of the pancake section versus the spindle, even though you do have a peak in the spindle area.
Food for thought.
Shell
Four more meals for thought
:
1) The energy density (energy per unit volume) is higher in the pipe than in the flying-saucer shaped pillbox.
Perhaps you are referring to the total energy (since there is greater volume in the flying-saucer-shaped pillbox) rather than the energy per unit volume? In most analyses (Dr. Sonny White's QV, Fernando Minotti's scalar-tensor theory, Alexander Trunev Yang-Mills Gravitation , etc.), what matters is the energy density rather than the total energy. I think that NASA's 2014 report is correct in focusing on the energy density, since it is the energy density the one that is related to stress, and hence to forces and momentum (it is the time-time component of the contravariant stress-energy tensor).
2) What matters for practical purposes anyway is the anomalous force The experimental fact is simple:
no dielectric in the Cannae drive's pipe = no measured anomalous force by NASA
3) In 2015 (after NASA's report of 2014) Cannae had to modify its 2012 patent application in order to introduce the need for a dielectric (starting with claim 1), since NASA found no thrust without a dielectric insert
4) Two completely different shapes (Cannae flying-saucer pillbox and Shawyer's truncated cone), completely different mode shapes, completely different natural frequencies, but one common result by NASA:
no dielectric = no measured anomalous force by NASA
for both completely different devices, mode shapes and natural frequencies.
An experimental fact discussed in NASA's "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum" by David A. Brady*, Harold G. White†, Paul March‡, James T. Lawrence§, and Frank J. Davies
-
#1266 by Monomorphic on 15 Apr, 2016 13:22
-
no dielectric = no measured anomalous force by NASA
for both completely different devices, mode shapes and natural frequencies.
I don't mind doing some tests using HDPE. This stuff should do the trick, right?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000ILG0XM/ref=biss_dp_t_asn
From Cannae website: "The core of our technology uses electromagnetic, radio-frequency resonant thrusters with unique geometries creating Lorentz Force imbalances to generate thrust. Cannae has demonstrated 2 separate prototypes of a superconducting thruster which requires no dielectric material to generate thrust." -
#1267 by Rodal on 15 Apr, 2016 13:31
-
no dielectric = no measured anomalous force by NASA
for both completely different devices, mode shapes and natural frequencies.
I don't mind doing some tests using HDPE. This stuff should do the trick, right?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000ILG0XM/ref=biss_dp_t_asn
From Cannae website: "The core of our technology uses electromagnetic, radio-frequency resonant thrusters with unique geometries creating Lorentz Force imbalances to generate thrust. Cannae has demonstrated 2 separate prototypes of a superconducting thruster which requires no dielectric material to generate thrust."
1) Thank you for asking. No, I would not use that, because the Amazon product may not be extruded. I would use an extruded HDPE big diameter rod, as used by NASA, from McMasterCarr, because rod extrusion introduces preferential alignment of the molecules (anisotropy) that may be most important in piezoelectric and other effects introduced by the dielectric
2) NASA only measured anomalous forces with the Cannae device when it had a dielectric insert. Cannae's new patent (2015) only includes a dielectric, starting in claim 1. If Cannae thinks that a dielectric is not needed, why is the dielectric now included in the claim? (why not say with a dielectric or without a dielectric?). Cannae's superconducting test results were criticized at length by zen-in.
3) Further to Cannae's experimental claims, one of their main experimental claims is that the small grooves in the flyings-saucer part of Cannae's device was most important to generate thrust, according to Cannae's computer modeling and according to their AIAA paper. However NASA showed that the Cannae grooves had practically no effect on the measurements. -
#1268 by SeeShells on 15 Apr, 2016 13:37
-
...
You know me by now, looking at thing a little differently and I'm looking at this differently as well.
If we are to consider the the energy within this cavity where the highest levels exist you're correct, it's in the spindle section versus the pancake section, although I would like you to consider the total amount of energy present for a the given volumes in the spindle and the pancake.
A very rough calculation is showing that >150 times greater energy levels exists per volume in the area of the pancake section versus the spindle, even though you do have a peak in the spindle area.
Food for thought.
Shell
1) The energy density (energy per unit volume) is higher in the pipe than in the flying-saucer shaped pillbox. Perhaps you are referring to the total energy (since there is greater volume in the flying-saucer-shaped pillbox) rather than the energy per unit volume?
2) What matters for practical purposes anyway is the anomalous force The experimental fact is simple:
no dielectric in the Cannae drive's pipe = no measured thrust by NASA
3) Cannae had to modify its patent in order to introduce the need for a dielectric (starting with claim 1), since there is no thrust without a dielectric insert
I understand about the anonymous mysterious force, but until we know what that force is and how it's generated we must look at all the dynamic aspects of a drive. It is foolish not too. I also find it interesting that the forces generated by the Chinese are in the same multiplier ranges as a photon rocket as the Cannae and maybe Shawyer's w/o inserts but the shapes are vastly different.
Plus I've always found the point of the Cannae drive needing a dielectric very interesting as Dr. Whites theory requires a dielectric insert which I understand they inserted to get it to work. If that's the case then Cannae needs to thank EW for the special sauce.
PDF download warning in NASA's EagleWorks report. The review of the Cannae starts at page 6
Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum
David A. Brady*, Harold G. White†, Paul March‡, James T. Lawrence§, and Frank J. Davies** NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058
Added a missed o in foolish.
-
#1269 by Rodal on 15 Apr, 2016 13:57
-
..I also find it interesting that the forces generated by the Chinese are in the same multiplier ranges as a photon rocket as the Cannae ...
This is not what my calculation shows. Could you please indicate the calculation for
<<the forces generated by the Chinese are in the same multiplier ranges as a photon rocket as the Cannae>> ?
Thanks
Added upon further thought:
PS: Perhaps you are comparing Cannae's superconducting claims vs. Yang's not-superconducting claims?
When comparing Cannae not-superconducting to Yang's not-superconducting, then Yang's claimed force/PowerInput is much larger than Cannae's according to my calculations
Otherwise one would be comparing very different conductivities, which tremendously affects the quality of resonance Q -
#1270 by Rodal on 15 Apr, 2016 14:10
-
no dielectric = no measured anomalous force by NASA
for both completely different devices, mode shapes and natural frequencies.
I don't mind doing some tests using HDPE. This stuff should do the trick, right?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000ILG0XM/ref=biss_dp_t_asn
From Cannae website: "The core of our technology uses electromagnetic, radio-frequency resonant thrusters with unique geometries creating Lorentz Force imbalances to generate thrust. Cannae has demonstrated 2 separate prototypes of a superconducting thruster which requires no dielectric material to generate thrust."
1) Thank you for asking. No, I would not use that, because the Amazon product may not be extruded. I would use an extruded HDPE big diameter rod, as used by NASA, from McMasterCarr, because rod extrusion introduces preferential alignment of the molecules (anisotropy) that may be most important in piezoelectric and other effects introduced by the dielectric
2) NASA only measured anomalous forces with the Cannae device when it had a dielectric insert. Cannae's new patent (2015) only includes a dielectric, starting in claim 1. If Cannae thinks that a dielectric is not needed, why is the dielectric now included in the claim? (why not say with a dielectric or without a dielectric?). Cannae's superconducting test results were criticized at length by zen-in.
3) Further to Cannae's experimental claims, one of their main experimental claims is that the small grooves in the flyings-saucer part of Cannae's device was most important to generate thrust, according to Cannae's computer modeling and according to their AIAA paper. However NASA showed that the Cannae grooves had practically no effect on the measurements.
See:
http://www.mcmaster.com/#hdpe/=11zqzcs
This may be what NASA used (need to double check that these rods are indeed still extruded from the same supplier as in 2014 as vendors often change suppliers)
Rigid HDPE Polyethylene Rod, 6" Diameter
More About Plastics
Length, ft.
1
Each
ADD TO ORDER
In stock
$70.39 Each
Could also Google Search for "extruded rod HDPE" where many suppliers are listed -
#1271 by SeeShells on 15 Apr, 2016 14:12
-
Force/Power Multiple of Photon Rocket..I also find it interesting that the forces generated by the Chinese are in the same multiplier ranges as a photon rocket as the Cannae ...
This is not what my calculation shows. Could you please indicate the calculation for
<<the forces generated by the Chinese are in the same multiplier ranges as a photon rocket as the Cannae>> ?
Thanks
PS: Perhaps you are comparing Cannae's superconducting claims vs. Yang's not-superconducting claims?
When comparing Cannae not-superconducting to Yang's not-superconducting, then Yang's claimed force/PowerInput is much larger than Cannae's according to my calculations
Cannae LLC, G. Fetta, Superconducting 228400 - 285500
Chinese Non-Superconducting 270000 - 320000
Source:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
Both without reported dielectric inserts.
-
#1272 by Rodal on 15 Apr, 2016 14:15
-
Force/Power Multiple of Photon Rocket..I also find it interesting that the forces generated by the Chinese are in the same multiplier ranges as a photon rocket as the Cannae ...
This is not what my calculation shows. Could you please indicate the calculation for
<<the forces generated by the Chinese are in the same multiplier ranges as a photon rocket as the Cannae>> ?
Thanks
PS: Perhaps you are comparing Cannae's superconducting claims vs. Yang's not-superconducting claims?
When comparing Cannae not-superconducting to Yang's not-superconducting, then Yang's claimed force/PowerInput is much larger than Cannae's according to my calculations
Cannae LLC, G. Fetta, Superconducting 228400 - 285500
Chinese Non-Superconducting 270000 - 320000
Source:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
Both without reported dielectric inserts.
But the quoted test for Yang is not-superconducting, while the test for Cannae is superconductiing.
Superconductivity severely affects the conductivity of the metal and hence severely affects the quality of resonance Q.
I think it would be more appropriate to compare Cannae's not superconducting tests with Yang's tests.
For example, if you compare NASA's test of the Cannae device (not superconducting) you will see that the results are much lower than the force/PowerInput claimed by Yang.
I think that the reason for the discrepancy for non-superconducting tests is due in great part to the different testing methods employed by Yang and NASA. (NASA's standard testing method (horizontal torque pendulum) being much more valid, as per 50 years of testing of micro-thrust measurements for ion rocket engines in the US aerospace industry). -
#1273 by SeeShells on 15 Apr, 2016 14:28
-
Dr, Rodal,
Force/Power Multiple of Photon Rocket..I also find it interesting that the forces generated by the Chinese are in the same multiplier ranges as a photon rocket as the Cannae ...
This is not what my calculation shows. Could you please indicate the calculation for
<<the forces generated by the Chinese are in the same multiplier ranges as a photon rocket as the Cannae>> ?
Thanks
PS: Perhaps you are comparing Cannae's superconducting claims vs. Yang's not-superconducting claims?
When comparing Cannae not-superconducting to Yang's not-superconducting, then Yang's claimed force/PowerInput is much larger than Cannae's according to my calculations
Cannae LLC, G. Fetta, Superconducting 228400 - 285500
Chinese Non-Superconducting 270000 - 320000
Source:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results
Both without reported dielectric inserts.
But the quoted test for Yang is not-superconducting, while the test for Cannae is superconductiing.
Superconductivity severely affects the conductivity of the metal and hence severely affects the quality of resonance Q.
I think it would be more appropriate to compare Cannae's tests with not superconducting material with Yang's tests.
It maybe appropriate to review this as it's interesting that three things are apparent.
1. Vastly different drive shapes and configurations and both reported thrust.
2. Neither reported using dielectrics.
3. One was superconducting and the other not.
Shell
-
#1274 by Monomorphic on 15 Apr, 2016 14:34
-
Rigid HDPE Polyethylene Rod, 6" Diameter
More About Plastics
Length, ft.
1
Each
ADD TO ORDER
In stock
$70.39 Each
McMaster is located here in Atlanta. How convenient! I think NASA used two of the 6" diameter 1" length discs that run $18.54 each: http://www.mcmaster.com/#hdpe/=11zr8dk
I do not think I can get a 6" disc through the small end opening of my frustum, so I may have to go with the 4 or 5 inch. Does this stuff bend or is it very rigid like resin? If i can double it over I won't have to cut each disk in half.
-
#1275 by Rodal on 15 Apr, 2016 14:38
-
Rigid HDPE Polyethylene Rod, 6" Diameter
More About Plastics
Length, ft.
1
Each
ADD TO ORDER
In stock
$70.39 Each
McMaster is located here in Atlanta. How convenient! I think NASA used two of the 6" diameter 1" length discs that run $18.54 each: http://www.mcmaster.com/#hdpe/=11zr8dk
I do not think I can get a 6" disc through the small end opening of my frustum, so I may have to go with the 4 or 5 inch. Does this stuff bend or is it very rigid like resin? If i can double it over I won't have to cut each disk in half.
HDPE's modulus of elasticity (E) is about 1/2 to 1/3 of "rigid" epoxy resin so it is a fairly stiff polymer, unless you use very, very thin material.
For all practical purposes, consider it like resin (although it is a thermoplastic rather than a thermoset) from the point of view of modulus of elasticity (also, it is not as brittle as epoxy). Do not assume that you are going to be able to easily bend it into shape. -
#1276 by Rodal on 15 Apr, 2016 14:46
-
It is also appropriate to consider the following experimental results and patents in such a review:
Dr, Rodal,
It maybe appropriate to review this as it's interesting that three things are apparent.
1. Vastly different drive shapes and configurations and both reported thrust.
2. Neither reported using dielectrics.
3. One was superconducting and the other not.
Shell
How should we interpret/analyze the reported experimental result that NASA only measured anomalous thrust for the Cannae non-superconducting device when introducing a dielectric insert in the Cannae pipe ?
And the fact that Cannae, after NASA's 2014 measurement, incorporated a dielectric in Cannae's 2015 patent claims?
-
#1277 by Tellmeagain on 15 Apr, 2016 15:15
-
It is also appropriate to consider the following experimental results and patents in such a review:
Dr, Rodal,
It maybe appropriate to review this as it's interesting that three things are apparent.
1. Vastly different drive shapes and configurations and both reported thrust.
2. Neither reported using dielectrics.
3. One was superconducting and the other not.
Shell
How should we interpret/analyze the reported experimental result that NASA only measured anomalous thrust for the Cannae non-superconducting device when introducing a dielectric insert in the Cannae pipe ?
And the fact that Cannae, after NASA's 2014 measurement, incorporated a dielectric in Cannae's 2015 patent claims?
I do not think we should take seriously NASA's measurements with/without dielectric inserts. Was in one measurement the cannie drive grounded, and in another measurement not grounded? If in one measurement the drive was grounded, what was the shape of the RF cable in that measurement? These were factors that could have dramatically changed the Lorentz forces in their measurements, which had the same size as their measured thrust. Since they did not consider the Lorentz forces, their measurements were not valid and no conclusion should be drawn from their measurements. -
#1278 by Rodal on 15 Apr, 2016 15:40
-
It is also appropriate to consider the following experimental results and patents in such a review:
Dr, Rodal,
It maybe appropriate to review this as it's interesting that three things are apparent.
1. Vastly different drive shapes and configurations and both reported thrust.
2. Neither reported using dielectrics.
3. One was superconducting and the other not.
Shell
How should we interpret/analyze the reported experimental result that NASA only measured anomalous thrust for the Cannae non-superconducting device when introducing a dielectric insert in the Cannae pipe ?
And the fact that Cannae, after NASA's 2014 measurement, incorporated a dielectric in Cannae's 2015 patent claims?
I do not think we should take seriously NASA's measurements with/without dielectric inserts. Was in one measurement the cannie drive grounded, and in another measurement not grounded? If in one measurement the drive was grounded, what was the shape of the RF cable in that measurement? These were factors that could have dramatically changed the Lorentz forces in their measurements, which had the same size as their measured thrust. Since they did not consider the Lorentz forces, their measurements were not valid and no conclusion should be drawn from their measurements.
Thank you for further clarification (not clear whether you are dismissing all Cannae's measurements or just NASA's measurements of Cannae's device):
Do you take more seriously Cannae's claimed force measurements with the grooves? while NASA's measurements showed no anomalous force effect with Cannae's grooves?
Do you take more seriously Cannae's claimed force measurements with the Cannae non-superconducting and superconducting devices rather than NASA's non-superconducting measurements using a torque pendulum?
If so, what is the basis for taking Cannae's measurements more seriously than NASA's measurements? -
#1279 by rfmwguy on 15 Apr, 2016 15:46
-
Anyone else see the problem with using these with a magnetron? Hint, look at temp. Without proper thermal isolation, the 200 deg C/392 deg F can be a problem if dielectric is close to mag heat sink.Rigid HDPE Polyethylene Rod, 6" Diameter
More About Plastics
Length, ft.
1
Each
ADD TO ORDER
In stock
$70.39 Each
McMaster is located here in Atlanta. How convenient! I think NASA used two of the 6" diameter 1" length discs that run $18.54 each: http://www.mcmaster.com/#hdpe/=11zr8dk
I do not think I can get a 6" disc through the small end opening of my frustum, so I may have to go with the 4 or 5 inch. Does this stuff bend or is it very rigid like resin? If i can double it over I won't have to cut each disk in half.
: