-
#2540 by gustavo on 18 May, 2016 00:07
-
Thanks for the information Rodal, I have removed the modeling of the electric field from the algorithm.
But, what about the thrust that I get by using the pressure radiation equation with ray tracing method for a truncated cone cavity, also considering mirror efficiency?
Thrust increases with the number of reflections.
Thrust goes to zero if modeled with a cylinder.
This may not be the correct aproximation for microwave EmDrive, but shows that it works somehow.
Now a need to understand what is the results that I'm getting, in terms of physics.
It means that a truncated cone cavity bouncing a high energy laser can generage thrust too.
-----------
This is Thrust [N] x Time [ s]:
-
#2541 by FattyLumpkin on 18 May, 2016 00:19
-
Dr. Rodal, re the question on page 128 (approx. middle of page) I reviewed the vid, I guess I'd start at 4105 (the Ames talk). He states twice "we were able to" re how much power (how many Watts) they were able to get into the test article. He does state that TE012 is close to other modes and there was difficulty or trouble in this regard, but does not state that the difficulty in this mode had anything to do with input power.
I ask this question because one wonders why an increase in power was not attempted in TE012 since it demonstrated the best force/power. FL -
#2542 by Rodal on 18 May, 2016 00:34
-
Thanks for the information Rodal, I have removed the modeling of the electric field from the algorithm.
Hi Gustavo,
But, what about the thrust that I get by using the pressure radiation equation with ray tracing method for a truncated cone cavity, also considering mirror efficiency?
Thrust increases with the number of reflections.
Thrust goes to zero is modeled with a cylinder.
This may not be the correct aproximation for microwave EmDrive, but shows that it works somehow.
Now a need to understand what is the results that I'm getting, in terms of physics.
It means that a truncated cone cavity bouncing a high energy laser can generage thrust too.
-----------
This is Thrust [N] x Time [ s]:
Sorry I can't comment on why you get thrust.
NSF user Eusa has a theory for using lasers in an EM Drive, preferably with spherical ends. where the radius of curvature is has it center at the apex of the cone:
Eusa thinks that this would give even more thrust. You may want to try these rounded ends on your program (if your present calculations are with flat ends) and see what difference they make, if any, in your calculations. -
#2543 by otlski on 18 May, 2016 00:40
-
On the subject of twisted wires with power sources other than batteries. If your goal is to reduce interactions with Earth's magnetic field, then twisting is a good idea. However, there is a trade-off in other areas of performance. The trade-off is that of torque drift and hysteresis. The combination of twisted wires, especially if it is wrapped in tape will have greater section thickness and tend to act as one wire with double the thickness. Internal friction between the two wire insulators is the enabler. The sum of this is greater than if the two wires were free and independent as they jumped the gap between the moving and non-moving parts of the apparatus. Since having any kind of torque error is undesirable, adding more stiffness and internal frictions (hysteresis) just makes matters worse.
Continuing along the same theme, it is a good idea to take nothing for granted. Design purposeful wire run shapes (a loop of proper orientation) to jump this gap, design solid tie points to keep said wire runs consistent. Do not leave the geometry of the torsion wire ends to chance; make purposeful, robust terminations. The torsion wires are best if brazed or soldered to larger wire ends of larger diameter. This will allow for better clamping of the torsion wire ends. Knots and set screws are not encouraged. -
#2544 by meberbs on 18 May, 2016 00:48
-
...
The radiation pressure equation should result in no net force as long as you account for the initial and final momentum of the photons. What is the power level you used for your force calculation? Force per power greater than a photon rocket is what makes the EMDrive interesting.
But, what about the thrust that I get by using the pressure radiation equation with ray tracing method for a truncated cone cavity, also considering mirror efficiency?
Thrust increases with the number of reflections.
Thrust goes to zero is modeled with a cylinder.
...
I suspect this means that there is a mistake in your work somewhere. Without seeing your work, I can't be sure, but my guess would be that you forgot to include the cosine factor where a head on reflection imparts the full radiation pressure (times 2 for reflection), but for other cases, you have to multiply by cosine of the incident angle (relative to the wall you are reflecting off.) I believe leaving this off will overestimate the forces on the small end and lead to the result you found.
It could also be just a flipped sine vs cosine somewhere, or using the wrong angle. I have made that kind of mistake often enough myself.
Your ideas with using a laser for ray tracing are interesting, and I have had some similar thoughts about this kind of technique to visualize the travelling waves that make up the standing wave in the frustum. As Rodal points out though, there are issues where this ends up deviating from the exact solution. -
#2545 by dustinthewind on 18 May, 2016 01:14
-
Puthoff's approach is unconventional, leading to a variable speed of light in vacuum (c is a function of K, other "constants" become a function of K) and other unconventional ways to look at things. What is K? Puthoff writes "K is the (altered) dielectric constant of the vacuum (typically a function of position) due to (GR-induced) vacuum polarizability changes under consideration."...
I can't say this is directly related to what your talking about. It is just that it seems like it might be. I was talking to WarpTech elsewhere a bit about the polarizable vacuum concept. Here is a paper on the concept: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=puthoff+pv&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C48&as_sdtp= 2nd one down from arxiv "Polarizable-vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity", Puthoff's papers on PV. WarpTech pointed out that as the K value increases as you near say a planet that the momentum actually increases as p(K) = p0*K^1/2. If I did it right I figured the velocity decreases with K as v(K)=vo/K . He gave that m(K)=mo*K^(3/2) and the energy decreases with K as E(K)=Eo/K^(1/2). a(K)=ao/K^(3/2). Force and a few other products appear to remain constant and give the effect of slowing light down near gravitational objects.
I am not sure this is connected to what your talking about, (probably not). I doubt the magnitude matches, or I am unsure how the inside of a cavity could compare to a planet. However, you mentioned the wavelength getting longer near the narrow end but that the momentum would decrease. However in the PV concept the momentum increases because the mass increases at a more rapid rate than the velocity decreases while the light near the gravitational object red-shifts (slows in frequency via time slowing down or becoming heavier). I almost wanted to picture it as a sort of matter mist condensing on the photon. The idea in the PV concept is that light slows down near gravitational objects to give the gravitational lensing effect. However a local observer detects no change in the velocity of light. I think the details are in the paper.
Some of this is reminiscent of the Unruh effect (that the Quantum Vacuum effect depends on the acceleration of the observer). I can't comment on this approach: it would take me some time to study it.
Has it been shown to be compatible with our astrophysical measurements and to not lead to contradictions?
The wikipedia article states:Quoteit satisfies three of the four classical tests of relativistic gravitation (redshift, deflection of light, precession of the perihelion of Mercury) to within the limit of observational accuracy. However, as shown by Ibison (2003), it yields a different prediction for the inspiral of test particles due to gravitational radiation.
... In particular, this theory exhibits no frame-dragging effects. Also, the effect of gravitational radiation on test particles differs profoundly between scalar theories and tensor theories of gravitation such as general relativity. LIGO is not intended primarily as a test ruling out scalar theories, but is widely expected to do so as a side benefit once it detects unambiguous gravitational wave signals exhibiting the characteristics expected in general relativity.
Are there answers to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizable_vacuum#Criticism ?
Didn't even Einstein consider the non-local speed of light to vary? Here is a quote,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
"Einstein's VSL In General Relativity 1905 to 1915[edit]
Albert Einstein went through several versions of light speed theory between 1905 and 1915, eventually concluding that light speed is constant when gravity does not have to be considered[5] but the velocity of light cannot be regarded as constant in a changing gravity field. In the same book Einstein explained that he intended light speed to be a vector when it was described by coordinates in a reference frame.[6] The reader was left to decide whether Einstein intended the speed of light to change in a gravity field, or just the direction of the vector would change.
The answer lies in the math of Einstein’s book.[7] A calculation of alpha (α) follows equation 107 and makes an unambiguous use of variable scalar light velocity (L) both as the argument of a partial differential function (proving a variable) and as the denominator in a fraction (proving not a vector) both in the same integrated quantity. Division by a vector is not defined, so there is no other way to interpret the velocity of light in this usage except as a variable scalar speed."
Not to mention as the length contraction near a star happens and time slows down how would a photon get through this region with out slowing down? It appears the PV theory one of the parallel's in thought to the non-locally variable speed of light quoted at this link above. I would imagine to incorporate frame dragging all they would have to do is incorporate some more mathematical frame work. I think this is what WarpTech was suggesting was done here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.1735;wap2
It appears some work has been attempted, to incorporate frame dragging into PV.
http://vixra.org/abs/1604.0393 -
#2546 by zen-in on 18 May, 2016 01:51
-
Are you going to twist the wires to the magnetron, or run it like it is and then twist them?
Shell
Twisting the wires torques the pendulum. Maybe I could braid them together with the ground.
Braided wires look nice. Especially if a good choice of colors is used. The only time I've seen it done was at one lab at NASA's Ames Research Center where I worked for 5 years. A Stanford PhD liked doing it. Maybe he had too much time on his hands. Twisting the magnetron wires is not necessary. The interaction with the geomagnetic field is nil. The high current wires are AC. One reason for maybe braiding them and then taping the lot together so there is no bias would be to use the cable to hang the pendulum. It may not be as sensitive as a piano wire and attachment points may give way to arcing, but it is something to consider. -
#2547 by Rodal on 18 May, 2016 01:52
-
...
Well, several issues with variable speed of light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light#General_critique_of_varying_c_cosmologies
Didn't even Einstein consider the non-local speed of light to vary? Here is a quote,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
"Einstein's VSL In General Relativity 1905 to 1915[edit]
Albert Einstein went through several versions of light speed theory between 1905 and 1915, eventually concluding that light speed is constant when gravity does not have to be considered[5] but the velocity of light cannot be regarded as constant in a changing gravity field. In the same book Einstein explained that he intended light speed to be a vector when it was described by coordinates in a reference frame.[6] The reader was left to decide whether Einstein intended the speed of light to change in a gravity field, or just the direction of the vector would change.
The answer lies in the math of Einstein’s book.[7] A calculation of alpha (α) follows equation 107 and makes an unambiguous use of variable scalar light velocity (L) both as the argument of a partial differential function (proving a variable) and as the denominator in a fraction (proving not a vector) both in the same integrated quantity. Division by a vector is not defined, so there is no other way to interpret the velocity of light in this usage except as a variable scalar speed."
Not to mention as the length contraction near a star happens and time slows down how would a photon get through this region with out slowing down? It appears the PV theory one of the parallel's in thought to the non-locally variable speed of light quoted at this link above. I would imagine to incorporate frame dragging all they would have to do is incorporate some more mathematical frame work. I think this is what WarpTech was suggesting was done here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.1735;wap2
It appears some work has been attempted, to incorporate frame dragging into PV.
http://vixra.org/abs/1604.0393
of immediate concern to EM Drive Q resonance are having to modify Maxwell's equations and Lorentz invariance. -
#2548 by mwvp on 18 May, 2016 02:21
-
...I was thinking how the actions in a asymmetrical cavity squeezing the photons modes looked like spaghettification in dropping down into a black hole.
McCulloch's view?
...
Shell
Imagine you are a string.
I haven't considered McCullock very much, but anyways...
...as you travel from the injection point to the big end (at a constant speed equal to the speed of light) the frequency of vibration increases
Does the frequency, the cycles/radians per seconds really increase?! I kinda doubt that. The inverse-wavelength and wave-vector (cycles/radians per meter), but not the cycles per second, doppler-shift notwithstanding. Unless it has something to do with Unruh radiation. Maybe I'm missing something?
An illustration of dispersion in a non-tapered waveguide:
http://www.richardmcwhorter.com/NavyTraining/NEETS-v11-Microwave.pdf
pp 1-19 - 1-22
-
#2549 by SeeShells on 18 May, 2016 02:22
-
Spent the day getting the torsion wire attached to the test bed.
In the pendulum picture you can see the round hollow shaft ~ 5 inches long with .035 holes in both ends that the wire runs through, it will reside in the center supporting the arm for the drive and counter balance. A set screw in the center of the tube will capture the wire.
The wire runs through a section of threaded rod to a screw and washer, it makes sure I can set the tension on it, figure around 20 pounds.
Aligned it all using a laser to assure it was vertical, see pic.
Shell
-
#2550 by spupeng7 on 18 May, 2016 02:22
-
Thanks Dusty, and thank you Dr Rodal for a good answer....
I can't say this is directly related to what your talking about. It is just that it seems like it might be. I was talking to WarpTech elsewhere a bit about the polarizable vacuum concept. Here is a paper on the concept: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=puthoff+pv&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C48&as_sdtp= 2nd one down from arxiv "Polarizable-vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity", Puthoff's papers on PV. WarpTech pointed out that as the K value increases as you near say a planet that the momentum actually increases as p(K) = p0*K^1/2. If I did it right I figured the velocity decreases with K as v(K)=vo/K . He gave that m(K)=mo*K^(3/2) and the energy decreases with K as E(K)=Eo/K^(1/2). a(K)=ao/K^(3/2). Force and a few other products appear to remain constant and give the effect of slowing light down near gravitational objects.
I am not sure this is connected to what your talking about, (probably not). I doubt the magnitude matches, or I am unsure how the inside of a cavity could compare to a planet. However, you mentioned the wavelength getting longer near the narrow end but that the momentum would decrease. However in the PV concept the momentum increases because the mass increases at a more rapid rate than the velocity decreases while the light near the gravitational object red-shifts (slows in frequency via time slowing down or becoming heavier). I almost wanted to picture it as a sort of matter mist condensing on the photon. The idea in the PV concept is that light slows down near gravitational objects to give the gravitational lensing effect. However a local observer detects no change in the velocity of light. I think the details are in the paper. -
#2551 by rq3 on 18 May, 2016 02:30
-
Are you going to twist the wires to the magnetron, or run it like it is and then twist them?
Shell
Twisting the wires torques the pendulum. Maybe I could braid them together with the ground.
Braided wires look nice. Especially if a good choice of colors is used. The only time I've seen it done was at one lab at NASA's Ames Research Center where I worked for 5 years. A Stanford PhD liked doing it. Maybe he had too much time on his hands. Twisting the magnetron wires is not necessary. The interaction with the geomagnetic field is nil. The high current wires are AC. One reason for maybe braiding them and then taping the lot together so there is no bias would be to use the cable to hang the pendulum. It may not be as sensitive as a piano wire and attachment points may give way to arcing, but it is something to consider.
There are two seperate and non-negligable effects going on here.
1) A typical home microwave oven powers the magnetron with 1/2 wave AC, peaking at 10 kilovolts at roughly 0.3 amps. The magnetron filament is heated at a few volts floating off the high voltage transformer, but at tens of amps. The result is a very inexpensive, single transformer supply, and an extremely noisy radio frequency source. The line voltage chopping of the high tension supply results in all kinds of AM/PM/FM splatter from the magnetron.
2) A magnetron will run very well indeed on a "pure" DC supply, as some here have noted, perhaps due to my repetitive suggestions. The result is a fairly reasonable RF source, with bad phase noise, pretty good AM noise, and FM noise mainly due to thermal effects.
The problem for experimenters is building or buying a LOW NOISE multi-kilowatt/multi-kilovolt power supply that can also float a 10-30 amp filament souce during magnetron start-up.
High power solid state amplifiers require tens of amps of clean DC to get into the hundreds of watt RF output range. Both the magnetron and the solid state (transistor) approaches would require careful attention to lead twisting to negate magnetic fields.
As my earlier post illustrated, hanging an UN-POWERED magnetron from a torsion balance wire can yield about a 30 degree rotation, just from alignment with the Earth's magnetic field with the magnetron magnets. -
#2552 by rq3 on 18 May, 2016 02:45
-
Spent the day getting the torsion wire attached to the test bed.
In the pendulum picture you can see the round hollow shaft ~ 5 inches long with .035 holes in both ends that the wire runs through, it will reside in the center supporting the arm for the drive and counter balance. A set screw in the center of the tube will capture the wire.
The wire runs through a section of threaded rod to a screw and washer, it makes sure I can set the tension on it, figure around 20 pounds.
Aligned it all using a laser to assure it was vertical, see pic.
Shell
Shell, for adjustable anchoring of your wire, search McMaster Carr for pin vises. These are basically miniature three jaw chucks, very inexpensive, easily adjustable, and gentle on the wire. Using a set screw will nick the wire, and it WILL break well before it should.
The thinner the wire, the more sensitive the torsion balance. The thinnest wire I can immediately access is a 0.008 inch diameter silver plated steel guitar string at the local music store. It costs $0.70, and I sacrificed one with my calibrated force gauge to determine that it snapped at about 18 pounds tension. Well in agreement with calculation (calculation was 19 pounds, but there's a large variation on tensile strength).
-
#2553 by dustinthewind on 18 May, 2016 03:31
-
...
Well, several issues with variable speed of light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light#General_critique_of_varying_c_cosmologies
of immediate concern to EM Drive Q resonance are having to modify Maxwell's equations and Lorentz invariance.
I suppose if the framework isn't there to make useful predictions then that is a problem. Thanks Dr. Rodal for the response. I'm a bit surprised that standard EM science doesn't consider light speed to vary non-locally via relativity. Something to look into I suppose.
I would guess that the reason is most of our measurements are generally in our gravity. I wonder what would happen if they sent a signal to a satellite at a known distance, on the other side of the sun and bounced that signal multiple times, past the sun, to see if light was slowed in the proximity of its gravity field. -
#2554 by SeeShells on 18 May, 2016 03:37
-
Good advise, thanks!Spent the day getting the torsion wire attached to the test bed.
In the pendulum picture you can see the round hollow shaft ~ 5 inches long with .035 holes in both ends that the wire runs through, it will reside in the center supporting the arm for the drive and counter balance. A set screw in the center of the tube will capture the wire.
The wire runs through a section of threaded rod to a screw and washer, it makes sure I can set the tension on it, figure around 20 pounds.
Aligned it all using a laser to assure it was vertical, see pic.
Shell
Shell, for adjustable anchoring of your wire, search McMaster Carr for pin vises. These are basically miniature three jaw chucks, very inexpensive, easily adjustable, and gentle on the wire. Using a set screw will nick the wire, and it WILL break well before it should.
The thinner the wire, the more sensitive the torsion balance. The thinnest wire I can immediately access is a 0.008 inch diameter silver plated steel guitar string at the local music store. It costs $0.70, and I sacrificed one with my calibrated force gauge to determine that it snapped at about 18 pounds tension. Well in agreement with calculation (calculation was 19 pounds, but there's a large variation on tensile strength).
This is a basic build to iron out the kinks in a captured wire torsional pendulum. I was not sure of the strength of the wire but you just saved me a lot of guess work. Thanks!!!
I have on order from Amazon a Tuning Peg Machine Head and I'll add it to the build to tension the wire when it gets here. ~6 bucks.
-
#2555 by TheTraveller on 18 May, 2016 05:50
-
Long day of yardwork and building. Frustum soldered shut. Need only silver epoxy on large base to complete, but small base is 100% done. So, ran another sweep. Pushed VNA to slowest scan and very narrow bandwidth. 63dB return loss and note soldering brought frequency down to abt 2.44 Ghz. Much closer to 2450 modeling target. 10 MHz is close enough. Variation was my hand-building at home. No CNC machining, no lathe, none of the stuff I wish I had. Cut copper by hand. Here's the sweep...time for bed.
Shite Dave that looks interesting. Can you do another best settings scan using span +-20kHz of the lowest rtn loss? Really interested to see what the bottom / inside of that rtn loss peak really looks like.
Please don't say "It's full of stars".
.
-
#2556 by Chrochne on 18 May, 2016 05:58
-
New discovery is made in the field of light. I know there is quite a lot of speak about this in connection to the EmDrive and photons bouncing . It can be interesting information for folks here.
Here is CNN article where I found it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/17/tech/light-new-properties-discovery/index.html
"It's a bit like a tiny, light merry-go-round at a playground. It goes round and round, which is more or less they way people understood light to work. We thought it was impossible for a photon to send you halfway round, but it turns out, it's not," lead researcher Paul Eastham told CNN.
"What I think is so exciting about this result is that even this fundamental property of light, that physicists have always thought was fixed, can be changed," he said.
Research Article - http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1501748.full
Abstract
The angular momentum of light plays an important role in many areas, from optical trapping to quantum information. In the usual three-dimensional setting, the angular momentum quantum numbers of the photon are integers, in units of the Planck constant ħ. We show that, in reduced dimensions, photons can have a half-integer total angular momentum. We identify a new form of total angular momentum, carried by beams of light, comprising an unequal mixture of spin and orbital contributions. We demonstrate the half-integer quantization of this total angular momentum using noise measurements. We conclude that for light, as is known for electrons, reduced dimensionality allows new forms of quantization. -
#2557 by Rodal on 18 May, 2016 12:17
-
Maxwell's equations are purely field equations: in Maxwell's view there were only electromagnetic fields and no light particles: no such thing as "photon (both particle and wave)" until Quantum Mechanics appeared. For Maxwell, light was an undulation in the same medium (the aether) that was the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena. (Newton, conversely had a pure-particle theory of light, unlike Huygens who had purely a pure-wave theory of light).
I haven't considered McCullock very much, but anyways......I was thinking how the actions in a asymmetrical cavity squeezing the photons modes looked like spaghettification in dropping down into a black hole.
McCulloch's view?
...
Shell
Imagine you are a string.
...as you travel from the injection point to the big end (at a constant speed equal to the speed of light) the frequency of vibration increases
Does the frequency, the cycles/radians per seconds really increase?! I kinda doubt that. The inverse-wavelength and wave-vector (cycles/radians per meter), but not the cycles per second, doppler-shift notwithstanding. Unless it has something to do with Unruh radiation. Maybe I'm missing something?
An illustration of dispersion in a non-tapered waveguide:
http://www.richardmcwhorter.com/NavyTraining/NEETS-v11-Microwave.pdf
pp 1-19 - 1-22
The exact Maxwell field solution to the truncated cone with spherical ends has E and B vector fields that oscillate in time, at any point in the cavity, at a single frequency ω, and Poynting vector field S and tensor field T that oscillate everywhere in the cavity at twice that frequency: they oscillate at 2ω. At a fixed time, the E and B fields oscillate along the longitudinal direction of the EM Drive cavity as a Spherical Bessel function, a function that has a varying wavelength along the longitudinal direction such that its wavelength gets longer from the big end to the small end of the truncated cone. This is in contrast with the cylindrical cavity with constant circular cross-section, for which the E and B fields oscillate along the longitudinal direction like a cosine function, with constant wavelength from one end to the other end.
In the particle viewpoint, the photon, traveling at the speed of light in vacuum c, has a momentum
where ν (Greek letter "nu") is the frequency and λ is the wavelength, where the frequency of the photon is the speed of light in vacuum c divided by the wavelength. Hence, as the wavelength of the photon decreases, its frequency must increase (and vice-versa).
Light is both a particle and a wave, although visualization of light as being composed of photons is attractive, for most practical problems the field viewpoint of Maxwell is the most useful for actual macro-world solutions.
The photon viewpoint was introduced to visualize McCulloch's inertia theory for the photons, and his discussion of the momentum increasing from the small end to the big end of the cavity.
In Maxwell's theory, the electromagnetic momentum is given by the Poynting vector field S which, as shown below for the exact resonance (natural frequency eigensolution) TE013 mode shape in Shawyer's Flight Thruster, has greatest magnitude at the small end of the cavity (the opposite end to the big end), where the wavelength is greatest (in other words, the solution of Maxwell's equations give an electromagnetic field with greatest momentum at the small end, which is the opposite of what is shown in McCulloch's picture):
and shown here for a Meep run for a DIY project with RF feed from small end: -
#2558 by bprager on 18 May, 2016 12:43
-
Wouldn't it be great to have a visual indicator for resonance?
Something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_eye_tube!
-
#2559 by Monomorphic on 18 May, 2016 13:28
-
Long day of yardwork and building. Frustum soldered shut. Need only silver epoxy on large base to complete, but small base is 100% done. So, ran another sweep. Pushed VNA to slowest scan and very narrow bandwidth. 63dB return loss and note soldering brought frequency down to abt 2.44 Ghz. Much closer to 2450 modeling target. 10 MHz is close enough. Variation was my hand-building at home. No CNC machining, no lathe, none of the stuff I wish I had. Cut copper by hand. Here's the sweep...time for bed.
Would it be possible to sweep the frustum from 0.9Ghz - 2.5Ghz? Curious to see that trace and if there are any other modes near. It may be possible to compare that trace with NASA's sweep to identify them.