-
#2420 by Rodal on 15 May, 2016 12:48
-
So, if I understand you correctly, "anyone who reads and listens to everything that he has disclosed and can connect the dots that info creates" can advertise and sell circular-cross-section EM Drive frustum units without having to pay license fees to Shawyer or to SPR Ltd.?Concerning your announcement of going commercial later this year, do you need a licensing arrangement with Shaywer to go commercial: to advertise selling units?
We are in discussion.
I do not seek to be a SPR licensee as that involves a lot of Red tape.
What Roger has shared with me is available to anyone who reads and listens to everthing that he has disclosed and can connect the dots that info creates.
I do have his permission to use "Shawyer Effect Propulsion".
I imagine you are referring to going commercial in countries outside the UK? license fees are compulsory only in the UK, where Shawyer has UK Patents? -
#2421 by TheTraveller on 15 May, 2016 12:55
-
....
I would suggest you and many here need to start opening your mindset to the possibility Roger's theory of Emwave momentum gradient lost momentum being gained by the frustum is what happens. So CofM is conserved but in a way never understood before but with ground work done by Cullen in 1950.
As to what happens with propellantless accelerative CofE, well I can share my rotary test rig and that of another respected lab will shortly answer that question.
2016 will be an exciting time to be alive.
Who needs Epstein Fusion Drives to make "The Expanse" happen? -
#2422 by TheTraveller on 15 May, 2016 12:56
-
So, if I understand you correctly, "anyone who reads and listens to everything that he has disclosed and can connect the dots that info creates" can advertise and sell circular-cross-section EM Drive frustum units without having to pay license fees to Shawyer or to SPR Ltd.?Concerning your announcement of going commercial later this year, do you need a licensing arrangement with Shaywer to go commercial: to advertise selling units?
We are in discussion.
I do not seek to be a SPR licensee as that involves a lot of Red tape.
What Roger has shared with me is available to anyone who reads and listens to everthing that he has disclosed and can connect the dots that info creates.
I do have his permission to use "Shawyer Effect Propulsion".
I imagine you are referring to going commercial in countries outside the UK? license fees are compulsory only in the UK, where Shawyer has UK Patents?
No comment on that.
What I can share is what I said some time ago. Roger & SPR shareholders will financially benefit from my EmDrive thruster sales as they have done the hard yards to make this happen. However I will not have Shawyer Effect Propulsion thruster sales restricted or controlled in any way by any countries DOD. -
#2423 by Monomorphic on 15 May, 2016 13:37
-
Don't understand why you suggest it is associated with wedge frustum as neither Roger nor I ever suggested such an association.
When we were first running sims on the wedge, in response to my post, you told us Roger said the Flight Thruster worked in TE013 mode. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1507144#msg1507144
"Roger told me the Flight Thruster worked in TE013 mode."
So are you saying that the pizza geometry works at TE013 but not the wedge? Also, I'm not sure how the standard terminology would be applied to the pizza geometry. Dr. Rodal?
-
#2424 by Rodal on 15 May, 2016 13:53
-
My understanding is the following:Don't understand why you suggest it is associated with wedge frustum as neither Roger nor I ever suggested such an association.
When we were first running sims on the wedge, in response to my post, you told us Roger said the Flight Thruster worked in TE013 mode. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1507144#msg1507144
"Roger told me the Flight Thruster worked in TE013 mode."
So are you saying that the pizza geometry works at TE013 but not the wedge? Also, I'm not sure how the standard terminology would be applied to the pizza geometry. Dr. Rodal?
1) The older version of the Boeing Flight Thruster had a circular cross-section, TheTraveller said that Shawyer told him that this design used mode shape TE013.
This is the first and oldest version of Boeing Flight Thruster (http://emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html):
Credit for image: Lasoi http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1336790#msg1336790
This is a picture of an even older EM Drive design, the Demonstrator, with round cross-section run with mode shape TE012 (TE012 mode shape according to the few dimensions given, and backtracking from the Design Factor, as well as the 2.45 GHz excitation by magnetron):
This is a picture of the oldest EM Drive test: the "Experimental", as one can see it has the round circular cross-section typical of the old design that Shawyer used to use a long time ago:_by_Kwame_Nkrumah_University_of_Science_and_Technology_College_of_Engineering.jpg)
2) There is some confusion as to what the cross-sectional shape of the superconducting Shawyer EM Drive drawing represents.
His superconducting EM Drive patent only explicitly discusses a round cross-section. TheTraveller lately stated that from his personal communications with Shawyer and from the design discussed in the Acta Astronautica paper (where several units are inside a casing) his understanding is that the latest implementation has a pizza slice shape, with a rectangular cross-section. Hence it appears that there may be different conceptions of this superconducting drawing. There is no photograph of any such unit indicating whether any of these conceptions have been reduced to practice.
You are correct, for a rectangular cross-section, the international standard convention is that the equivalent mode shape to TE013 round cross-section is mode shape TE103 rectangular cross-section because Shawyer only tapers one dimension, and that dimension is the narrow side of the rectangular cross-section.
There was this 2008 prototype with a rectangular cross-section C-Band (~ 4 GHz same frequency range as Boeing Flight Thruster), a newer version of the Flight Thruster which apparently Shawyer switched to at that time:
and this is the rectangular cross-section EM Drive proudly shown by Shawyer in his latest presentation BBC Project Greenglow;
3) Since the older version of the Flight Thruster had a circular cross-section, and this Boeing project dates to several years ago, while the EM Drive unit that Shawyer proudly showed at BBC Project Greenglow had a rectangular cross-section, while the latest conception of the superconducting unit also has a rectangular cross-section, it looks like Shawyer used round cross-sections for older EM Drives: Experimental, Demonstrator and older version of Flight Thruster while Shawyer has switched to rectangular cross-section for his newer designs.
TheTraveller (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1507068#msg1507068) has called thisQuotethe only cryo EmDrive photo that has been released to the public as attached
which obviously has a rectangular cross-section, and shaped like a wedge with curved ends (only one direction is tapered, and ends are round in only one direction: hence mode shape has to be TE103 to be equivalent to round TE013):
-
#2425 by The Amazing Catstronaut on 15 May, 2016 13:56
-
I'd just like to butt into your discussion that you've been having over the months/years, as someone who is not a physicist, to note that it's extremely exciting to see somebody attempting to create a commercially available EM thruster. It'll forever remain a pipe dream until people start selling rig designs.
By all means, carry on and keep pooling your knowledge. These last seven threads have been the most interesting to read on the whole of the forum. -
#2426 by TheTraveller on 15 May, 2016 13:57
-
Don't understand why you suggest it is associated with wedge frustum as neither Roger nor I ever suggested such an association.
When we were first running sims on the wedge, in response to my post, you told us Roger said the Flight Thruster worked in TE013 mode. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1507144#msg1507144
"Roger told me the Flight Thruster worked in TE013 mode."
So are you saying that the pizza geometry works at TE013 but not the wedge? Also, I'm not sure how the standard terminology would be applied to the pizza geometry. Dr. Rodal?
What Roger shared was the Flight Thruster delivered to Boeing and all newer thrusters use TE013.
I have no intel on the 2008 era wedge excition mode nor freq nor Q.
Note the cryo thrysters excite in the middle of the frustum, which is where the middle lobe of TE013 exists. Doing excitation that way also means the transit time from the excitation point to the end plates are the same, which means the reflected travelling waves arrive back at the central excitation point at the same time and in phase with the external excitation.
Penny starting to drop? -
#2427 by rfmwguy on 15 May, 2016 14:22
-
I'd just like to butt into your discussion that you've been having over the months/years, as someone who is not a physicist, to note that it's extremely exciting to see somebody attempting to create a commercially available EM thruster. It'll forever remain a pipe dream until people start selling rig designs.
Appreciate your check in. Its nice to know our musings, data, hopefully polite disagreements, etc are read with interest. We are all challenging a reported anomaly, many with the hope it can lead to mankinds ability to reach the stars. Some with the hope that classical physics will explain it away as errors and we become better with our next experiments.
By all means, carry on and keep pooling your knowledge. These last seven threads have been the most interesting to read on the whole of the forum.
Either way is good, as long as the spirit of open collaboration and civil discourse remain.
Actually, my personal belief is that's the biggest thing these threads are pioneering...a worldwide open science project being viewed by millions. I don't recall ever reading about something of this magnitude and potential in the past. -
#2428 by Monomorphic on 15 May, 2016 14:24
-
Note the cryo thrysters excite in the middle of the frustum, which is where the middle lobe of TE013 exists. Doing excitation that way also means the transit time from the excitation point to the end plates are the same, which means the reflected travelling waves arrive back at the central excitation point at the same time and in phase with the external excitation.
I've always used middle injection. Learned that early on when running sims. -
#2429 by Monomorphic on 15 May, 2016 14:50
-
These are all the emdrive geometry options I can think of (excluding Cannae). We have seen plenty of cone frustums and wedges. The question is, does the superconducting section-view drawing indicate a pizza slice or frustum with curved end-plates? I tend to lean towards the pizza slice since Shawyer seems to have moved towards the rectangular cross-section.
-
#2430 by Rodal on 15 May, 2016 14:57
-
McCulloch with the flu goes shopping for fish food and in the process comes up with an explanation of his theory:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/05/clearer-explanation-of-mihsc-emdrive.html
Quote from: McCullochthe RF excitation puts microwaves into the cavity. MiHsC allows more Unruh waves (greater photon inertial mass) at the wide end, so as new microwave energy is put into the cavity its center of mass is continually being shifted towards the wide end, hence the EM Drive moves to the right
-
#2431 by X_RaY on 15 May, 2016 15:08
-
First short try with the alternate geometry. Note the high E-field strength in the upper corner. Should be TE1..something.
High field strength in the upper corner is true for a few different modes while for other the fields remains almost zero in this section.
-
#2432 by Rodal on 15 May, 2016 15:13
-
First short try with the alternate geometry. Note the high E-field strength in the upper corner. Should be TE1..something.
Very interesting !
We see that
1) The cavity still resonates? (what is the Q ?
)
2) the electromagnetic fields stop somewhere near/beyond the cut-off for an open waveguide
3) if you don't continue the taper to the apex, the energy density stops short of the small end
4) if you continue the taper to the apex, you all of a sudden get a concentration at the apex, at the apex (vertex) singularity that was examined by StrongGR (Marco Frasca) in his paper ! -
#2433 by SeeShells on 15 May, 2016 15:44
-
Very nice X)_ray. I like this thought. Maybe I should revisit the thinking in testing the extended split cone I did last year without the perforated walls? We didn't have FEKO then and were struggling to get even meep running.First short try with the alternate geometry. Note the high E-field strength in the upper corner. Should be TE1..something.
Very interesting !
We see that
1) The cavity still resonates? (what is the Q ? )
2) the electromagnetic fields stop somewhere near/beyond the cut-off for an open waveguide
3) if you don't continue the taper to the apex, the energy density stops short of the small end
4) if you continue the taper to the apex, you all of a sudden get a concentration at the apex, at the apex (vertex) singularity that was examined by StrongGR (Marco Frasca) in his paper !
Dr. Rodal, the word should be "Fascinating"...
Back to work.
Shell
Added: The Q shouldn't be as interesting as the energy in the tiny captured mode.
-
#2434 by meberbs on 15 May, 2016 16:11
-
....
I would suggest you and many here need to start opening your mindset to the possibility Roger's theory of Emwave momentum gradient lost momentum being gained by the frustum is what happens. So CofM is conserved but in a way never understood before but with ground work done by Cullen in 1950.
...
We have tried to open our minds to this, but every time we run into contradictions that you ignore, and I see no way to resolve. for your conservation of momentum claim, what happens to the momentum that is lost in what you refer to as the gradient? The physics that Cullen used to derive the waveguide photon momentum equation says that any change is due to transfer of momentum to the sidewalls, negating any difference in force on the end plates.
There is an even more fundamental problem I realized when reading some of your previous posts. Assuming that Cullen's equation is applicable, and ignoring any forces on the side walls, Cullen's equation shows that the force would be larger on the large plate than the small plate. This would predict motion of the cavity large end forward, while experiments generally have shown small end forward.
I'll start paying attention to Shawyer's theory when someone can resolve the contradictions throughout it. Even if your rotary demonstrator works as advertised, that only would validate Shawyer's experiments (which would be awesome). His theory would remain contradictory, and therefore useless. -
#2435 by Rodal on 15 May, 2016 16:17
-
Very nice X)_ray. I like this thought. Maybe I should revisit the thinking in testing the extended split cone I did last year without the perforated walls? We didn't have FEKO then and were struggling to get even meep running.First short try with the alternate geometry. Note the high E-field strength in the upper corner. Should be TE1..something.
Very interesting !
We see that
1) The cavity still resonates? (what is the Q ? )
2) the electromagnetic fields stop somewhere near/beyond the cut-off for an open waveguide
3) if you don't continue the taper to the apex, the energy density stops short of the small end
4) if you continue the taper to the apex, you all of a sudden get a concentration at the apex, at the apex (vertex) singularity that was examined by StrongGR (Marco Frasca) in his paper !
Dr. Rodal, the word should be "Fascinating"...
Back to work.
Shell
Added: The Q shouldn't be as interesting as the energy in the tiny captured mode.
The cone with a vertex is of interest because of what Dr. Marco Frasca (StrongGR) found in his paper: the general relativity effect takes place at the apex of the cone as a singularity (the effect increases as the vertex is approached).
It would be interesting to test on that account.
From an energy density point of view, the volume around the vertex is small, and there is a significant gap empty of energy density between the apex and the rest of the energy density where there is a bigger volume. So this is more a matter of intensity of the electromagnetic field. If the electric field gets very high there you may get electric breakdown of the air in that vicinity.
If comparing, tests may need to compare with similar materials and wall design: if the other tests do not have perforated walls, it may be better to compare without a perforated wall... -
#2436 by X_RaY on 15 May, 2016 16:18
-
Note that the a-side width doesn't change in this case while your geometry almost acts like a cone. I am pretty sure in the apex of a cone the fields are near to zero since the dimensions shrink in general not only in one of the dimensions.
Very nice X)_ray. I like this thought. Maybe I should revisit the thinking in testing the extended split cone I did last year without the perforated walls? We didn't have FEKO then and were struggling to get even meep running.First short try with the alternate geometry. Note the high E-field strength in the upper corner. Should be TE1..something.
Very interesting !
We see that
1) The cavity still resonates? (what is the Q ? )
2) the electromagnetic fields stop somewhere near/beyond the cut-off for an open waveguide
3) if you don't continue the taper to the apex, the energy density stops short of the small end
4) if you continue the taper to the apex, you all of a sudden get a concentration at the apex, at the apex (vertex) singularity that was examined by StrongGR (Marco Frasca) in his paper !
Dr. Rodal, the word should be "Fascinating"...
Back to work.
Shell
Added: The Q shouldn't be as interesting as the energy in the tiny captured mode. -
#2437 by Monomorphic on 15 May, 2016 16:22
-
I didn't take it to a point, but I did do a run a while back where I tapered the small end in both directions.
-
#2438 by FattyLumpkin on 15 May, 2016 16:28
-
Shell, if you're still on...re this image of yours, I don't recall exactly; this very clean frequency/signal was the result of powering your Maggie with DC, but is it fair to assume that it is a water cooled Maggie and you experience no "signal drift" related to the active cooling ? thnx FL
-
#2439 by Monomorphic on 15 May, 2016 16:34
-
First short try with the alternate geometry. Note the high E-field strength in the upper corner. Should be TE1..something.
High field strength in the upper corner is true for a few different modes while for other the fields remains almost zero in this section.
I still get cuttoff effects at 2.445 - 2.45Ghz when extending wedge to a point.
)