-
#1540
by
Rodal
on 23 Apr, 2016 21:36
-
... 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)!!! 
Sorry, I don't have any idea why you think that geometry
is "perfect" or why do you think that it will produce thrust.
Least of all I don't understand why that picture represents the "best" knowledge according to NSF
First of all, that is a mode shape with p=1.
Therefore the picture runs completely contrary to all recommendations at NSF, NASA, Shawyer and elswhere:
1) Shawyer used p=2 and p=3. TheTraveller quotes Shawyer as Shawyer now recommending p=3
2) NASA used p=2
3) Yang reported that she used p=2
4) I was just posting to Monomorphic discussing the importance of Energy Density. According to several theories the mode shape you show (p=1) may end up with a force in the opposite direction as to the one prevalent in most tests !
So I don't follow why describe this image as "perfect geometry". What's so perfect about it
-
#1541
by
FattyLumpkin
on 23 Apr, 2016 21:41
-
I don't know this to be true, I believe this to be TE311 @ 2.45GHz (I don't know the dims.)
Re: the actual Q and calculated Q numbers, .99168 is considered to be statistically significant?
Thank you FL
-
#1542
by
Rodal
on 23 Apr, 2016 21:45
-
I don't know this to be true, I believe this to be TE311 @ 2.45GHz (I don't know the dims.)
Re: the actual Q and calculated Q numbers, .99168 is considered to be statistically significant?
Thank you FL
Well, I can't tell what is m from your picture, since the cross-section is not shown. Concerning n and p, the picture shows n=1 and p=1.
I don't recall neither NASA, Shawyer or Yang ever running TE311 and I still have no idea why you think this will produce thrust or why this is a perfect geometry. I don't recall NASA, Shawyer or Yang ever recommending this mode shape.
-
#1543
by
rfmwguy
on 23 Apr, 2016 21:45
-
Common plastic disc from a 3D printer inserted on large diameter by hackaday:
I see no increase in peak deflection but a slightly wider power bandwidth...deflection versus time. They are injecting rf symmetrically on large end as I did. Unknown plastic dielectric disk is on large end. What's missing is a vna sweep with and without dielectric. Would assume resonance frequency was lower when plastic was inserted. Q will lower as 3dB bandwidth widens...probably very similar image as this wider power bandwidth.
If these assumptions are correct, a lower Q provides a wider power bandwidth without sacrificing peak power. This is counterintuitive, however.
-
#1544
by
Rodal
on 23 Apr, 2016 21:49
-
Common plastic disc from a 3D printer inserted on large diameter by hackaday:
What plastic polymer is this? 3D printers use different types of polymers, for example:
acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polycarbonate (PC), polylactic acid (PLA), high density polyethylene (HDPE), PC/ABS, polyphenylsulfone (PPSU) , high impact polystyrene (HIPS), etc.etc.
Stratasys uses engineering thermoplastics like ABS, Nylon, Ultem, etc.
Does "common" mean that they used ABS
(ABS ) is a common thermoplastic polymer. Its glass transition temperature is approximately 105 °C (221 °F). ABS is
amorphous rather than semi-crystalline.)
-
#1545
by
Monomorphic
on 23 Apr, 2016 22:06
-
I don't know this to be true, I believe this to be TE311 @ 2.45GHz (I don't know the dims.)
Re: the actual Q and calculated Q numbers, .99168 is considered to be statistically significant?
Thank you FL
Those are the dims for my first "learner" frustum. It's the most ideal TE311 at 2.45Ghz I could find. I was working to confirm resonance by using an IR camera, as this "whispering gallery" mode is very distinct, but the 1mm copper is proving difficult for a few reasons, such as the heat washing out too quickly. I'm working on a couple of new frustums, including a wedge-shaped cavity that resonates at TE013.
-
#1546
by
Rodal
on 23 Apr, 2016 22:16
-
...
Re: the actual Q and calculated Q numbers, .99168 is considered to be statistically significant?
Thank you FL
ANSWER concerning Q: the calculation by NASA of a Q that differs by only 0.8% from the measured Q is really outstanding, and shows once again what really high quality job the people at NASA Eagleworks have done. As discussed, analysts usually don't run a convergence study nor do they have the computer time to run a fine mesh. Anything that gets close to the measurement within 1% is good.
So that you have some standards of comparisons:
1)early MEEP calculations shown at NSF were showing a Q of tens of millions instead (several orders of magnitude larger than actual Q's). Even the best MEEP NSF results I think never got as close to a few % from measured Q's.
2) Tajmar reports that they run a COMSOL analysis of their experiment. Nobody at NSF has been able to reproduce their claimed results, either using exact solutions, or using COMSOL or using FEKO. Tajmar's initial dimensions were off by as much as a factor of 2 in his initial report. Even after addressing the dimensions it is has not been possible to match the claimed frequency and Q. A lot of the discrepancy arises from unknown opening between the coupling waveguide and the frustum (did Tajmar model this with COMSOL
) and the fact that he used an adjustable end.
-
#1547
by
FattyLumpkin
on 23 Apr, 2016 22:23
-
Dr. Rodal, My question has to go hypothetical here.
If simulated resonance of a given frustum appears to be "poor", one would NOT expect thrust to be produced by said frustum? yes?
If simulated resonance of a given frustum appears to be "good" one would expect the frustum to produce thrust? yes? The "deep structure" of the above may assert false assumptions as I am still in the learning phase. Thank for your time.
There will be not repost to your response.
, FL
-
#1548
by
Rodal
on 23 Apr, 2016 22:28
-
Dr. Rodal, My question has to go hypothetical here.
If simulated resonance of a given frustum appears to be "poor", one would NOT expect thrust to be produced by said frustum? yes?
If simulated resonance of a given frustum appears to be "good" one would expect the frustum to produce thrust? yes? The "deep structure" of the above may assert false assumptions as I am still in the learning phase. Thank for your time.
There will be not repost to your response. , FL
According to the following theories, you are correct:
1) Shawyer
2) McCulloch
3) Notsosureofit
since these theories have a direct dependence between thrust and Q quality factor, and the highest Q is achieved at the natural frequency. No doubt about it. (This is why Shawyer is pursuing superconductivity: to maximize Q and hence maximize thrust)
According to the following theory, it is
not necessarily correct that the highest thust corresponds to highest Q:
4) Quantum Vacuum of Dr. White
as Star-Drive wrote in previous threads that the QV computer model of Dr. White showed NASA that the relationship of thrust to quality factor was not as simple as per the other theories. If my memory is correct he stated that highest thrust may not correspond to the mode shape that gives highest Q.
Not much you can do with that information, since Dr. White's QV model is not available to the public.
-
#1549
by
FattyLumpkin
on 23 Apr, 2016 22:41
-
Monomorphic, I'd gladly manufacture the trapezoidal prism and ship it to you, Shell or Dave for thrust testing (once you were satisfied with your sims, RF type and numbers et al.) This assumes any of the three of you would be open to doing so. Am not going to build my own test rig. While trust is usually earned over time and not freely given, someone has to jump in and take a first big step: such a build would run around > $1000 not including shipping an RF source + a few other goodies. Monomorphic, have you tested your build for thrust yet? FL
PS: I wouldn't move forward without a consensus by the three of you including Dr. R.
Would like to get TT"s input, but he seems not to be engaged at this time. (no emoji for perplexed or perhaps grumpy? for TT) Don't know , FL
-
#1550
by
Rodal
on 23 Apr, 2016 22:47
-
...
Would like to get TT"s input, but he seems not to be engaged at this time. (no emoji for perplexed or perhaps grumpy? for TT)
TT has his own forum (probably best way to get his input and tips), if you are interested in how to access TT's forum, I suggest you send a personal message through NSF directly to TT, or PM rfmwguy asking how to access TT's forum, as he may remember (?)
_____
PS: you may also use Google Advanced Search to see whether the link to TT's forum is available.
-
#1551
by
FattyLumpkin
on 23 Apr, 2016 22:53
-
Have only ever received one response from TT re a query. Since then, have sent two very polite massages to him, with no response.
I don't care to engage him based on what I have seen here on NFS.... idealism is not always well served. FL
-
#1552
by
FattyLumpkin
on 23 Apr, 2016 22:57
-
DR Rodal, my understanding was that Sonny's QV theory was related only to "Q thrusters" (attached) and not EM or Cannae.
-
#1553
by
Rodal
on 23 Apr, 2016 23:07
-
DR Rodal, my understanding was that Sonny's QV theory was related only to "Q thrusters" (attached) and not EM or Cannae.
The EM Drive and the Cannae drive are also Q-Thrusters. See my prior post (the sets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram that encircle the smaller ones contain the smaller ones):
Q-Thrusters is the UNION set of all the others
Q-Thrusters = (EM Drive) ∪ (Cannae) ∪ (Serrano Field Effect) ∪ (Mach Lorentz thruster) ∪ (etc.)
RF Cavity Thruster = (EM Drive) ∪ (Cannae) ∪ (Cauliflower-shaped cavity thruster) ∪ (trombone-shaped cavity thruster) ∪ (etc.)
This:
is a Mach Lorentz Thruster as designed by Paul March. It is not an RF cavity thruster, but it is also a Q-Thruster
-
#1554
by
FattyLumpkin
on 24 Apr, 2016 00:11
-
Yes Doctor, you went through that is exemplary detail. I do remember. Would you then say that Sonny's "QV" theory does not belong on the "list" of the following:
1) Shawyer
2) McCulloch
3) Notsosureofit
Still learning, Thank you, FL
-
#1555
by
Rodal
on 24 Apr, 2016 00:22
-
Yes Doctor, you went through that is exemplary detail. I do remember. Would you then say that Sonny's "QV" theory does not belong on the "list" of the following:
1) Shawyer
2) McCulloch
3) Notsosureofit
Still learning, Thank you, FL
From discussions from Star-Drive, it is definitely different in several respects, one of them being the dependence of thrust on Q since the theories of Shawyer, McCulloch and Notsosureofit are all simply dependent on Q.
A big difference is that Shawyer's, McCulloch and Notsosureofit theories have closed-form simple equations you can enter in a spreadsheet and easily calculate the thrust.
Apparently this is not so with Dr. White's formulation: apparently it requires a magneto-hydrodynamics-like computation, like a plasma code . Star-Drive showed some sample runs in previous threads. For example, see this:
as you can see from the above picture, Dr. White's computation is more complicated.
Again, not much you can do about it, since Dr. White's code is not available to the public, while the
simpler formulations from Shawyer, McCulloch and Notsosureofit are readily available to the public.
-
#1556
by
guckyfan
on 24 Apr, 2016 00:42
-
Hi all
I am mostly a lurker on this thread and only limited as 99% of the physics is over my head. But the recent talk about dielectrics increasing thrust got me thinking. Tests in vacuum yielded a much lower thrust than in air which was seen by sceptics as proof that it is only a thermal effect, not a real effect.
Air is a dielectric too. Is it possible that the thrust observed in vacuum is so much lower because of that?
-
#1557
by
Rodal
on 24 Apr, 2016 00:51
-
Hi all
I am mostly a lurker on this thread and only limited as 99% of the physics is over my head. But the recent talk about dielectrics increasing thrust got me thinking. Tests in vacuum yielded a much lower thrust than in air which was seen by sceptics as proof that it is only a thermal effect, not a real effect.
Air is a dielectric too. Is it possible that the thrust observed in vacuum is so much lower because of that?
The difference in the value of the electric permittivity between air and vacuum (*) is extremely small, but on the other hand the experimental data shows that the effect of the polymer used by NASA can
not be due to the permittivity. It must be due to something else.
To dismiss the effect of the polymer used by NASA as just being a "dielectric" (hence its effect being determined by its permittivity)
would be to ignore the experimental data that indicates otherwise, that something else is at play. (**)
Until that is determined precisely your proposal is subject to consideration. More experiments are required to answer this and many other questions.
_________
(*)
Relative permittivity of Vacuum = 1
Relative permittivity of Air =1.000589
(**) I previously showed that the highest thrust was obtained with lower permittivity rather than higher permittivity materials. We cannot consider the material as just a "dielectric": that would ignore the reason why March had the idea to introduce the polymer in the first place, which was instead related to Prof. Woodward's Mach Effect.
March having stated that Woodward's Mach effect and White's QV are two sides of the same coin.
(***) Alternatively, Frobnicat explains the polymer action results as an experimental artifact: being due to heating and thermal expansion of the polymer shifting the mass during the experiment
-
#1558
by
rfmwguy
on 24 Apr, 2016 03:10
-
DR Rodal, my understanding was that Sonny's QV theory was related only to "Q thrusters" (attached) and not EM or Cannae.
The EM Drive and the Cannae drive are also Q-Thrusters. See my prior post (the sets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram that encircle the smaller ones contain the smaller ones):
Q-Thrusters is the UNION set of all the others
Q-Thrusters = (EM Drive) ∪ (Cannae) ∪ (Serrano Field Effect) ∪ (Mach Lorentz thruster) ∪ (etc.)
RF Cavity Thruster = (EM Drive) ∪ (Cannae) ∪ (Cauliflower-shaped cavity thruster) ∪ (trombone-shaped cavity thruster) ∪ (etc.)
This:
is a Mach Lorentz Thruster as designed by Paul March. It is not an RF cavity thruster, but it is also a Q-Thruster
Curious, what is the source of the q thruster chart? Either I've forgotten or its new to me
-
#1559
by
Rodal
on 24 Apr, 2016 03:55
-
I am the author of the Venn diagram of the Q-thrusters:
I authored it based on this slide from Dr. White at NASA:
and other publications by Dr. White, including his presentation at NASA Ames.
I used the RF cavity thruster designation used by Wikipedia (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster) to designate the union set comprising the EM Drive, Cannae drive and any other shape of RF resonant cavity thruster. Said union set RF cavity thruster being a subset of the Q-thruster set.
The Boeing Serrano thruster and the Lockheed-Martin, Paul-March/Mach-Lorentz thrusters (which are not RF cavity thrusters) were designated Q-thrusters by Dr. White.
Dr. R, the tone of these ?s is intended to be jovial, but inquisitive (no mal intent)!!! 
, FL
I don't care to engage him based on what I have seen here on NFS.... idealism is not always well served. FL