-
#1520 by rfmwguy on 23 Apr, 2016 16:04
-
I am surprised (and was it all the time) about the placement of a dielectric at the small end.
I agree with this reasoning even though I am not planning on a dielectric disk myself. IF the desired effect is to obtain a greater delta difference between the 2 endplates, putting it on the large end is the way to go.
Thats the region inside the cavity where the wavelength is greater and the wavenumber is small. When placing a dielectric there the wavenumber increases and the difference in relation to the big end will be smaller
To increase the effect of the frustum in regard to the wavelength it would make more sense to place the dielectric at the big end. IMHO
A dielectric allows less copper volume for the same resonant frequency, meaning that RF would resonate within this area with less volume compared to an air dielectric as you know. With that tradeoff comes a lower Q PLUS you must design the frustum for using the dielectric. An air dielectric frustum of the same resonance will have a larger diameter big end.
Now for a thought experiment...given this dielectric theory, would it not be possible to construct an EMDrive that is mechanical symmetrical (a straight tube or waveguide) when one end has the dielectric? This provides the delta resonance difference just as it would in a conical frustum.
I believe this is exactly what mulletron and perhaps zellerium designed and neither one had positive results AFAIK. Not trying to be an advocate for or against the dielectric, just interested in the idea. -
#1521 by Rodal on 23 Apr, 2016 16:14
-
I am surprised (and was it all the time) about the placement of a dielectric at the small end.
Which means that to think of the dielectric effect solely based on the effect of the real part of the electric permittivity is incorrect, because it ignores the experimental data:
Thats the region inside the cavity where the wavelength is greater and the wavenumber is small. When placing a dielectric there the wavenumber increases and the difference in relation to the big end will be smaller
To increase the effect of the frustum in regard to the wavelength it would make more sense to place the dielectric at the big end. IMHO
1) That the anomalous thrust effect may not be due solely to the real part of the permittivity was discussed by Star-Drive early on
2) As discussed previously: the experiments of Shawyer with dielectrics involved inorganic dielectric materials with high values of relative permittivity (values over 30). He found negative results. Shawyer did not experiment with organic dielectrics. NASA has used polimer dielectrics with much lower values of electric permittivity than the dielectrics used by Shawyer. NASA found out that the best results were obtained with polymers having much lower values of electric pemittivity (NASA also found not very good results when using inorganic dielectrics with much higher values of electric permittivity).
Shawyer's dielectric relative electric permittivity = 38
(UK Patent Application GB 2 334 761 A, date of publication 01.09.1999, application No 9809035.0, date of filing 29.04.1998)
NASA's extruded HDPE elative electric permittivity =2.26 (Value used to match measured natural frequencies with FEKO: 2.15)
Ratio of dielectric permittivity of Shawyer's inorganic dielectric material compared to NASA's dielectric material:
38/2.26 = 16.8
NASA tested both, and saw much greater effect on the anomalous force by using the polymer dielectric which has 17 times lower value of electric permittivity
The dielectric with which NASA obtained the greatest anomalous force was the one with the lower electric permittivity, the one closer to the value of permittivity of air (or vacuum). This shows that the effect is not one due to the real part of the electric permittivity per se. -
#1522 by Rodal on 23 Apr, 2016 16:17
-
Your discussion is not taking into account what Star-Drive has discussed in previous threads. It does not take into account NASA's tests comparing inorganic dielectrics with high values of electric permittivity (that were also used by Shawyer with negative results) compared with polymer dielectrics with much lower values of electric permittivity.I am surprised (and was it all the time) about the placement of a dielectric at the small end.
I agree with this reasoning even though I am not planning on a dielectric disk myself. IF the desired effect is to obtain a greater delta difference between the 2 endplates, putting it on the large end is the way to go.
Thats the region inside the cavity where the wavelength is greater and the wavenumber is small. When placing a dielectric there the wavenumber increases and the difference in relation to the big end will be smaller
To increase the effect of the frustum in regard to the wavelength it would make more sense to place the dielectric at the big end. IMHO
A dielectric allows less copper volume for the same resonant frequency, meaning that RF would resonate within this area with less volume compared to an air dielectric as you know. With that tradeoff comes a lower Q PLUS you must design the frustum for using the dielectric. An air dielectric frustum of the same resonance will have a larger diameter big end.
...
Both Shawyer and NASA's experiments show that the effect cannot be due to the real part of the electric pemittivity, and yet your discussion is made only considering the real part of the electric pemittivity.
To understand the effect of the dielectric one has to take into consideration the experimental data. -
#1523 by rfmwguy on 23 Apr, 2016 16:30
-
I spoke with Paul on the phone...well, some time ago now about dielectric materials. While he did mention that they saw results with it, he also indicated they probably did without it when they re-analyzed their data - some time after the fact.
Your discussion is not taking into account what Star-Drive has discussed in previous threads. It does not take into account NASA's tests comparing inorganic dielectrics with high values of electric permittivity (that were also used by Shawyer with negative results) compared with polymer dielectrics with much lower values of electric permittivity.I am surprised (and was it all the time) about the placement of a dielectric at the small end.
I agree with this reasoning even though I am not planning on a dielectric disk myself. IF the desired effect is to obtain a greater delta difference between the 2 endplates, putting it on the large end is the way to go.
Thats the region inside the cavity where the wavelength is greater and the wavenumber is small. When placing a dielectric there the wavenumber increases and the difference in relation to the big end will be smaller
To increase the effect of the frustum in regard to the wavelength it would make more sense to place the dielectric at the big end. IMHO
A dielectric allows less copper volume for the same resonant frequency, meaning that RF would resonate within this area with less volume compared to an air dielectric as you know. With that tradeoff comes a lower Q PLUS you must design the frustum for using the dielectric. An air dielectric frustum of the same resonance will have a larger diameter big end.
...
Both Shawyer and NASA's experiments show that the effect cannot be due to the real part of the electric pemittivity, and yet your discussion is made considering the real part of the electric pemittivity.
To understand the effect of the dielectric one has to take into consideration the experimental data.
Either way, with or without is not a design approach I want to promote. I think the dielectric could certainly not hurt anything and will save space at a cost of Q. If it does turn out to enhance the effect, I would be all for it...no ego to bruise either way.
-
#1524 by Rodal on 23 Apr, 2016 16:40
-
...
1) Let's agree that the discussion should not be about promoting something like dielectric use or not. The discussion should be about "EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications" where promotions are discouraged and we discuss instead whether the EM Drive anomalous force can be used for space propulsion and if so how to get the maximum amount of space propulsion force/InputPower.
I spoke with Paul on the phone...well, some time ago now about dielectric materials. While he did mention that they saw results with it, he also indicated they probably did without it when they re-analyzed their data - some time after the fact.
Either way, with or without is not a design approach I want to promote. I think the dielectric could certainly not hurt anything and will save space at a cost of Q. If it does turn out to enhance the effect, I would be all for it...no ego to bruise either way.
2) You made an analysis of dielectrics based on the real part of the electric pemittivity, I showed that this ignores the experimental data discussed previously with Star-Drive. The experimental data of Shawyer and NASA show that the parameter you considered to analyze dielectrics: the real part of the electric permittivity is not the correct parameter to consider in regards force/InputPower (see; http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1522806#msg1522806)
3) Of course when quoting your conversation with Paul, you are reaching your own conclusions, based on your own interpretations. I think that you will agree that you are not speaking for NASA:
A) when discussing the dielectric in NASA's test you should not ignore the figure of merit for the EM Drive: it is not the force, but the force/InputPower that matters. Your characterization of NASA's results for the dielectric ignores a comparison of the force/InputPower achieved with and without a dielectric. In other words, if NASA's tests are that the force/inputPower using a dielectric is X times the force/InputPower without a dielectric, and the amount "X" is significant, this is something of crucial importance.
B) You should take into account the experimental uncertainty in the tests, in order to evaluate the significance of experimental measurements with and without a dielectric insert.
C) You should compare the force/InputPower with and without a dielectric, for the same testing equipment, instead of different testing equipment (and preferably the torsion pendulum instead of the teeter totter tests)
When somebody tells you that "they may have seen results without a dielectric" you should ask:
a) how much was the force/InputPower without a dielectric in the same testing equipment? how much was it with a dielectric ?
b) what was the experimental uncertainty in those numbers for the force/inputPower?
Analysis of experimental data, to arrive at valid conclusions, involves consideration of a) and b). -
#1525 by X_RaY on 23 Apr, 2016 17:48
-
Rodal, my suggestion was made to rethink about the best position of a dielectric inside the cavity. If the generation of thrust depends on ε", a dielectric material with higher losses would generate more thrust.I am surprised (and was it all the time) about the placement of a dielectric at the small end.
Which means that to think of the dielectric effect solely based on the effect of the real part of the electric permittivity is incorrect, because it ignores the experimental data:
Thats the region inside the cavity where the wavelength is greater and the wavenumber is small. When placing a dielectric there the wavenumber increases and the difference in relation to the big end will be smaller
To increase the effect of the frustum in regard to the wavelength it would make more sense to place the dielectric at the big end. IMHO
1) That the anomalous thrust effect may not be due solely to the real part of the permittivity was discussed by Star-Drive early on
2) As discussed previously: the experiments of Shawyer with dielectrics involved inorganic dielectric materials with high values of relative permittivity (values over 30). He found negative results. Shawyer did not experiment with organic dielectrics. NASA has used polimer dielectrics with much lower values of electric permittivity than the dielectrics used by Shawyer. NASA found out that the best results were obtained with polymers having much lower values of electric pemittivity (NASA also found not very good results when using inorganic dielectrics with much higher values of electric permittivity).
Shawyer's dielectric relative electric permittivity = 38
(UK Patent Application GB 2 334 761 A, date of publication 01.09.1999, application No 9809035.0, date of filing 29.04.1998)
NASA's extruded HDPE elative electric permittivity =2.26 (Value used to match measured natural frequencies with FEKO: 2.15)
Ratio of dielectric permittivity of Shawyer's inorganic dielectric material compared to NASA's dielectric material:
38/2.26 = 16.8
NASA tested both, and saw much greater effect on the anomalous force by using the polymer dielectric which has 17 times lower value of electric permittivity
The dielectric with which NASA obtained the greatest anomalous force was the one with the lower electric permittivity, the one closer to the value of permittivity of air (or vacuum). This shows that the effect is not one due to the real part of the electric permittivity per se.
Did you know about a test where the dielectric was at the big base and after that at the small to compare the results? -
#1526 by Rodal on 23 Apr, 2016 17:54
-
...
1) I don't think that the anomalous force depends on the imaginary part of the dielectric electric permittivity, ε", per se, either, as the dielectric test data shared by Star-Drive also points to the negative of that, as he showed that Neoprene and other materials with higher ε" resulted in lower values. NASA got the best results with HDPE and PTFE dielectrics having lower values of ε"
Rodal, my suggestion was made to rethink about the best position of a dielectric inside the cavity. If the generation of thrust depends on ε", a dielectric material with higher losses would generate more thrust.
Did you know about a test where the dielectric was at the big base and after that at the small to compare the results?
2) Star-Drive shared results with a dielectric at the big base. The direction of the force was switched if I remember correctly.
3) Experimental data: best force/InputPower results for TM212 mode shape with the HDPE dielectric at the small end -
#1527 by Rodal on 23 Apr, 2016 18:21
-
So, should we have a discussion of what material parameters can be relevant for the dielectric, considering the experimental data ?
-
#1528 by X_RaY on 23 Apr, 2016 18:21
-
Is there a link to the statement of stardrive available?...
1) I don't think that the anomalous force depends on the imaginary part of the dielectric, ε", per se, either, as the dielectric test data shared by Star-Drive also points to the negative of that, as he showed that Neoprene and other materials with higher ε" resulted in lower values. NASA got the best results with HDPE and PTFE dielectrics having lower values of ε"
Rodal, my suggestion was made to rethink about the best position of a dielectric inside the cavity. If the generation of thrust depends on ε", a dielectric material with higher losses would generate more thrust.
Did you know about a test where the dielectric was at the big base and after that at the small to compare the results?
2) Star-Drive shared results with a dielectric at the big base. The direction of the force was switched if I remember correctly.
3) Experimental data: best force/InputPower results for TM212 mode shape with the HDPE dielectric at the small end
Rechecked the Nasa paper. Not sure about the best mode shape in regard to the input power.
-
#1529 by Rodal on 23 Apr, 2016 18:26
-
1) Discussion of different dielectrics materials (inorganic ceramic, Neoprene, PTFE, HDPE, etc., and location of dielectric) is in previous EM Drive threads
Is there a link to the statement of stardrive available?...
1) I don't think that the anomalous force depends on the imaginary part of the dielectric, ε", per se, either, as the dielectric test data shared by Star-Drive also points to the negative of that, as he showed that Neoprene and other materials with higher ε" resulted in lower values. NASA got the best results with HDPE and PTFE dielectrics having lower values of ε"
Rodal, my suggestion was made to rethink about the best position of a dielectric inside the cavity. If the generation of thrust depends on ε", a dielectric material with higher losses would generate more thrust.
Did you know about a test where the dielectric was at the big base and after that at the small to compare the results?
2) Star-Drive shared results with a dielectric at the big base. The direction of the force was switched if I remember correctly.
3) Experimental data: best force/InputPower results for TM212 mode shape with the HDPE dielectric at the small end
Rechecked the Nasa paper. Not sure about the best mode shape in regard to the input power.
2) You are correct concerning the best mode shape for force/InputPower according to the Brady et al report was TE012, rather than TM212. My understanding from discussions in previous threads is that the experimental uncertainty (reproducing the results) was significantly lower for TM212 and that's why they used TM212 after the Brady et.al. report: more reproducible results with TM212. -
#1530 by Monomorphic on 23 Apr, 2016 19:41
-
If this is true, this also suggests that perhaps the optimum dielectric would be a layered one, starting with a layer of very high n at the small endplate, followed by another of slightly lower n, and another of slightly lower n, until the entire cavity is filled (with perhaps the final layer being air or vacuum, next to the big endplate). Thus the photons would be in states of continuously differential v during the entire traverse of the cavity.
Gave that a go. On the left, no dialectric. On the right, five layers of dialectrics. Top layer (layer1) relative elec perm=3, layer2=2.25, layer3=1.5, layer4=0.75, layer5=0.01 I also used flaring, like the bell of a trumpet, for the side walls.
-
#1531 by Eusa on 23 Apr, 2016 19:45
-
Maybe the higher value of imaginary part of the dielectric ε could still be more effective to get more proper standing wave...
Is there a link to the statement of stardrive available?...
1) I don't think that the anomalous force depends on the imaginary part of the dielectric, ε", per se, either, as the dielectric test data shared by Star-Drive also points to the negative of that, as he showed that Neoprene and other materials with higher ε" resulted in lower values. NASA got the best results with HDPE and PTFE dielectrics having lower values of ε"
Rodal, my suggestion was made to rethink about the best position of a dielectric inside the cavity. If the generation of thrust depends on ε", a dielectric material with higher losses would generate more thrust.
Did you know about a test where the dielectric was at the big base and after that at the small to compare the results?
2) Star-Drive shared results with a dielectric at the big base. The direction of the force was switched if I remember correctly.
3) Experimental data: best force/InputPower results for TM212 mode shape with the HDPE dielectric at the small end
Rechecked the Nasa paper. Not sure about the best mode shape in regard to the input power. -
#1532 by FattyLumpkin on 23 Apr, 2016 19:58
-
Dr. Rodal, I an glad that as a neophyte in this controversy that X_Ray did complete the two NASA "downsized" frustum studies with results showing resonance in the TE012 and TM212 modes, and at the calculated frequencies. Initially, I believe is was argued that the downscaled frustum would not resonate in TM212 mode. Once X_Ray got all the RF specs. of the original NASA frustum, he was off to the races... many thanks too him! And to you for some of the data you provided.
I have been searching for the COMSOL sims that were reportedly performed in the modes, frequencies and power levels that are of what is reported in Experimental Results. The only sims. I can find are with very high power input levels (attached) and indeed do not even match in frequency! I point this out only to suggest that (it goes without saying) all data should be consistent "across the board", and I wish EWLs had provided the correlated sims (images) with their reported numerical data. As an experiment I think it might be fruit full to see
1) what/how the qualitative (imagery) would appear at the "best" frequency, mode and power: 1.8804, TE012. 2.6 W.... Dr. White's statement something along the line of "what we could get into it" re Watts strikes me as incomplete (not explained). This is not intended to be pejorative, only it leaves one wondering: 2)what was meant by this? , and 3) gee whiz, what would happen if we were to put more power into this "best N/W frustum? Would we see any changes in the qualitative and numerical data?
Is this fair? Difficult for me to articulate this, but would like to have input from all.
Thank you , FL
-
#1533 by Rodal on 23 Apr, 2016 20:02
-
If this is true, this also suggests that perhaps the optimum dielectric would be a layered one, starting with a layer of very high n at the small endplate, followed by another of slightly lower n, and another of slightly lower n, until the entire cavity is filled (with perhaps the final layer being air or vacuum, next to the big endplate). Thus the photons would be in states of continuously differential v during the entire traverse of the cavity.
Gave that a go. On the left, no dialectric. On the right, five layers of dialectrics. Top layer (layer1) relative elec perm=3, layer2=2.25, layer3=1.5, layer4=0.75, layer5=0.01 I also used flaring, like the bell of a trumpet, for the side walls.
Thank you for taking the time to do that.
What matters for a number of theoretical analyses of the anomalous thrust is the Energy Density, for example for the Quantum Vacuum theory of Dr. White, as well as for the analysis of Minotti and others using General Relativity.
Can you plot the Energy Density distribution with FEKO?
From Greg Egan's comparisons and also using my exact solution with Wolfram Mathematica I previously showed, for example that TE011 has the maximum Energy Density towards the big end, for TE012 is towards the middle while for TE013 it is towards the small end.
It would be interesting to plot the Energy Density distribution for dielectrics in different locations, as well as for functionally grading the dielectric (as you just did), etc.. -
#1534 by bprager on 23 Apr, 2016 20:05
-
The folks in Aachen are trying to compare results with and without dielectrics: https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive/log/36484-tests-with-a-dielectric.
-
#1535 by Rodal on 23 Apr, 2016 20:07
-
Dr. Rodal, I an glad that as a neophyte in this controversy that X_Ray did complete the two NASA "downsized" frustum studies with results showing resonance in the TE012 and TM212 modes, and at the calculated frequencies. Initially, I believe is was argued that the downscaled frustum would not resonate in TM212 mode. Once X_Ray got all the RF specs. of the original NASA frustum, he was off to the races... many thanks too him! And to you for some of the data you provided.
I have been searching for the COMSOL sims that were reportedly performed in the modes, frequencies and power levels that are of what is reported in Experimental Results. The only sims. I can find are with very high power input levels (attached) and indeed do not even match in frequency! I point this out only to suggest that (it goes without saying) all data should be consistent "across the board", and I wish EWLs had provided the correlated sims (images) with their reported numerical data. As an experiment I think it might be fruit full to see
1) what/how the qualitative (imagery) would appear at the "best" frequency, mode and power: 1.8804, TE012. 2.6 W.... Dr. White's statement something along the line of "what we could get into it" re Watts strikes me as incomplete (not explained). This is not intended to be pejorative, only it leaves one wondering: 2)what was meant by this? , and 3) gee whiz, what would happen if we were to put more power into this "best N/W frustum? Would we see any changes in the qualitative and numerical data?
Is this fair? Difficult for me to articulate this, but would like to have input from all.
Thank you , FL
Let's tackle this bit by bit, rather than all at once.
Let's start by your statement:QuoteI have been searching for the COMSOL sims that were reportedly performed in the modes, frequencies and power levels that are of what is reported in Experimental Results.
Most COMSOL simulations by NASA (for example those showing mode shape and frequency) are eigensolutions to the eigenvalue problem.
Thus the statement of "power levels" is not correct, when discussing eigenfrequencies and eigenmodes :
1) the eigenvalue problem is not a function of power !
2) the eigenvalue solutions are correct for any amount of power (since Maxwell's equations are linear and the constitutive equations being modeled are linear as well)
3) the calculated eigenfrequencies may differ from experimental frequencies for several reasons:
a) the experiment may have been run by the experimenter at a frequency different from the natural frequency
b) the cavity may have expanded due to induction heating, hence the dimensions may be different than analyzed
c) the cavity may have different dimensions and material properties from those analyzed
d) numerical analyses like FEM and BEM converge from above: they are stiffer than the actual structure, and the analysts usually don't conduct a convergence study for the mesh. Differences of 1% are typical between the exact and the numerically calculated eigenfrequency
e) when the experimenter uses a magnetron (not NASA, since they did not use a magnetron), we know ahead of time that a magnetron has quite a bandwidth of frequencies, and experiences frequency modulation (FM), as well as phase and amplitude modulation.
-
#1536 by Rodal on 23 Apr, 2016 20:08
-
The folks in Aachen are trying to compare results with and without dielectrics: https://hackaday.io/project/5596-em-drive/log/36484-tests-with-a-dielectric.
Unfotunately I cannot find what dielectric material they are using
Does anybody know ? Thanks -
#1537 by Rodal on 23 Apr, 2016 20:45
-
Dr. Rodal, I an glad that as a neophyte in this controversy that X_Ray did complete the two NASA "downsized" frustum studies with results showing resonance in the TE012 and TM212 modes, and at the calculated frequencies. Initially, I believe is was argued that the downscaled frustum would not resonate in TM212 mode. Once X_Ray got all the RF specs. of the original NASA frustum, he was off to the races... many thanks too him! And to you for some of the data you provided.
I have been searching for the COMSOL sims that were reportedly performed in the modes, frequencies and power levels that are of what is reported in Experimental Results. The only sims. I can find are with very high power input levels (attached) and indeed do not even match in frequency! I point this out only to suggest that (it goes without saying) all data should be consistent "across the board", and I wish EWLs had provided the correlated sims (images) with their reported numerical data. As an experiment I think it might be fruit full to see
1) what/how the qualitative (imagery) would appear at the "best" frequency, mode and power: 1.8804, TE012. 2.6 W.... Dr. White's statement something along the line of "what we could get into it" re Watts strikes me as incomplete (not explained). This is not intended to be pejorative, only it leaves one wondering: 2)what was meant by this? , and 3) gee whiz, what would happen if we were to put more power into this "best N/W frustum? Would we see any changes in the qualitative and numerical data?
Is this fair? Difficult for me to articulate this, but would like to have input from all.
Thank you , FL
Having answered the eigenproblem (which is never a function of power), let's discuss the heat transfer solution that lead to the temperature calculations by NASA.
I don't think that you can object to a particular power used for the calculation, particularly when the power chosen is a nice round number like 100 watts, since we know, again that Maxwell's equations are linear, Fourier's heat conduction is linear, and the induction heating problem is linear, and all constitutive properties are linear.
Hence NASA's analysis, for a 100 watts power level makes eminent sense: as the analyst and the NASA engineers knew that the problem is linear and all they have to do is to appropriately scale the problem for different amounts of power (for temperatures one has to use the non-dimensional delta T ratios). -
#1538 by FattyLumpkin on 23 Apr, 2016 21:16
-
Dr, Rodal, my mistake if I suggested there was I controversy re dielectrics, I'll try again and hope I can clarify: Simple statement: NASA frustum (Original dims), "best" N/W frequency: 1.8804 GHz the mode is TE012, the subjective result (sim of the image) of the aforementioned is this:--- ? ---(no image).
Many, (if not all here at NSF) are correlating "resonance" with thrust as a predictor of the same,no? While simulation imagery is indeed subjective is it not playing a role in "our" modus operandi, re the decision making process for what in potential will produce the greatest N/W? E.g. this image (attached) represents geometery described as "perfect". Is it not fair to argue the resonance as simulated (subjective) is also "perfect"? Based on our experience here at NSF, should this build not produce thrust? I have no clue what the dims of this geometry are, or the "numbers" for that matter. Have "we" not correlated sims with what we believe to be the best thrust/power input? or? When comes the time for a build on my part, would I not perform a complete check of the geometry first by correlating the dims with an "excellent qualitative" analysis? Is it reasonable to proceed "under this assumption"?
Thanks, FL Dr. R, the tone of these ?s is intended to be jovial, but inquisitive (no mal intent)!!! 
-
#1539 by Rodal on 23 Apr, 2016 21:31
-
Dr, Rodal, my mistake if I suggested there was I controversy re dielectrics, I'll try again and hope I can clarify: Simple statement: NASA frustum (Original dims), "best" N/W frequency: 1.8804 GHz the mode is TE012, the subjective result (sim of the image) of the aforementioned is this:--- ? ---(no image). ...
Concerning this latest post, I think I answered concerning calculated eigenfrequencies vs. experimental frequencies.
Furthermore, if I am not mistaken X-Ray also took the time to perform a FEKO-Light calculation showing excellent comparison with NASA.
Concerning quality of resonance, you are mistaken, see p.17:QuoteFigure 22 shows a test run at the TE012 mode with an operating frequency of 1880.4 MHz. The measured quality factor was ~22,000, with a COMSOL prediction of 21,817.
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
July 28-30, 2014, Cleveland, OH AIAA 2014-4029
Propulsion and Energy Forum
as NASA besides reporting the calculated Q, showed that the Q comparison is excellent, for that mode shape and frequency. The difference between predicted and measured Q is only 0.8% !!! I don't understand why you state that there is no comparison
Furthermore the report also shows S21 comparisons on Fig. 21
