-
#3100 by Mulletron on 11 Jun, 2016 10:45
-
Was brushing up on surface integrals this morning and I realized that the addition of rf input and sample ports to an EMDrive technically changes the topology of the surface from closed to open. One hole changes the topology from a sphere to a surface, and two holes makes a cylinder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_(topology)#Closed_surfaces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction#Quantitative
I was using TE012 was a model and drawing two imaginary surfaces (one big, one small) to have a changing magnetic flux through but then took the idea of an open surface to the absolute limit.
-
#3101 by A_M_Swallow on 11 Jun, 2016 20:40
-
Was brushing up on surface integrals this morning and I realized that the addition of rf input and sample ports to an EMDrive technically changes the topology of the surface from closed to open. One hole changes the topology from a sphere to a surface, and two holes makes a cylinder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_(topology)#Closed_surfaces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction#Quantitative
I was using TE012 was a model and drawing two imaginary surfaces (one big, one small) to have a changing magnetic flux through but then took the idea of an open surface to the absolute limit.
Does the location of the holes change the amplitude and direction of the force vector?
I can imagine cosine loses in 3 dimensions. -
#3102 by FattyLumpkin on 12 Jun, 2016 01:27
-
Monomorphic, as you are busy with your frustum testing, I believe you indicated you would also be working on some Cannae sims. I take it you've seen both of these (attached) what I would call significantly different geometries from Cannae's patent papers? Here they are for the folks who may not have seen them. Will you be performing sims on both?
-
#3103 by Tellmeagain on 12 Jun, 2016 04:49
-
I also received the 900Mhz wireless switch to control the laser a day early! This switch has two channels, so I can control up to two devices without having to touch the torsional pendulum. It works for 3.7V - 12V.
Your relay may have electromagnet. Probably you need to modify the circuit to use a Darlington transistor in place of the relay. -
#3104 by Mulletron on 12 Jun, 2016 10:14
-
Was brushing up on surface integrals this morning and I realized that the addition of rf input and sample ports to an EMDrive technically changes the topology of the surface from closed to open. One hole changes the topology from a sphere to a surface, and two holes makes a cylinder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_(topology)#Closed_surfaces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction#Quantitative
I was using TE012 was a model and drawing two imaginary surfaces (one big, one small) to have a changing magnetic flux through but then took the idea of an open surface to the absolute limit.
Does the location of the holes change the amplitude and direction of the force vector?
I can imagine cosine loses in 3 dimensions.
I don't believe the holes have an effect when it comes to Gauss's law for magnetism (in electromagnetism) as the magnetic flux isn't entering or leaving the cavity. For the gravitomagnetic equivalent of Gauss's law for magnetism, I would expect there to be magnetic flux entering and leaving the volume enclosed by the cavity and the total flux through a closed surface is zero. I'm thinking that the orientation of the holes might matter for gravitomagnetic flux but I'm still not grasping what the boundaries really physically are (mass density maybe?). On the flip side, I think it's maybe better to forget about whether or not the cavity is technically open or closed and instead define the surface as an imaginary plane within the EMDrive, or the flat surface of the dielectric disc. I need to define a surface for the gravitomagnetic field that is open.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_magnetism#Integral_form
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_flux#Magnetic_flux_through_an_open_surface -
#3105 by Monomorphic on 12 Jun, 2016 11:26
-
Monomorphic, as you are busy with your frustum testing, I believe you indicated you would also be working on some Cannae sims. I take it you've seen both of these (attached) what I would call significantly different geometries from Cannae's patent papers? Here they are for the folks who may not have seen them. Will you be performing sims on both?
I thought Cannae no longer used the grooved cavity geometry. I haven't seen anything like that in any of the images in their new laboratory space.
-
#3106 by Rodal on 12 Jun, 2016 12:58
-
Indeed, the grooved "flying-saucer" Cannae geometry for copper cavitiesMonomorphic, as you are busy with your frustum testing, I believe you indicated you would also be working on some Cannae sims. I take it you've seen both of these (attached) what I would call significantly different geometries from Cannae's patent papers? Here they are for the folks who may not have seen them. Will you be performing sims on both?
I thought Cannae no longer used the grooved cavity geometry. I haven't seen anything like that in any of the images in their new laboratory space.
was abandoned upon NASA's 2014 nullification of the claimed benefits of the grooved Cannae geometry, as NASA showed no difference between grooved and non-grooved geometries. NASA showed that the important thing regarding thrust for copper cavities is the insertion of a polymer insert (with a relative low value of electric permittivity ~2 closer to the one of vacuum ~1, which should not be confused with the inorganic dielectric with very high values of electric permittivity ~38 tried by Shawyer).
Cannae's old patent application (Filing Date: Mar 22, 2012) discusses no dielectric insert in their claims: http://www.google.com/patents/US20140013724 and it shows the same grooved geometrical shape shown in FattyLumpkin's post
By contrast, Cannae's new patent application (filed Jun 30, 2015) prominently features the use of a dielectric material, starting with the most important patent claim: claim #1, and abandones the grooved geometry shown in FattyLumpkin's post
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2016004044A1?cl=en
The drawings shown in the 2015 patent application by Guido Fetta show a geometry similar to the one used by NASA in their 2014 tests: abandoning the "flying-saucer grooved shape without a dielectric" and instead using the asymmetric shape with a polymer insert on a cylindrical end of the cavity:
* This re-affirms NASA's 2014 experimental report findings of no significant anomalous force when not using a polymer insert, even when increasing the power input by a factor of 10
* This re-affirms Hackaday's Aachen team reports of finally "good" self-assessed results ONLY when using a polymer insert asymmetrically place inside the resonant cavity
-
#3107 by Monomorphic on 12 Jun, 2016 13:08
-
Build Update: Finished mounting the 900MHz wireless switch for the laser. It worked a little differently than I thought it would, and came with zero documentation of course! On the key chain transmitter, I had to figure out that the bottom button switches between channels and the top two are on and off. I used a simple voltage meter for that.
I see no reason why I can't just let the switch hang by the wires for now. I modified the adjustable mirror mount so the laser is also easily aimed by adjusting the wingnuts at the back. Calibration before each test now takes 20 seconds when before it could take five to ten minutes - because of the added complexity of bouncing off a small mirror mounted to a moving pendulum and hitting a spot only a couple inches across 30 feet away.
-
#3108 by keithpickering on 12 Jun, 2016 16:58
-
I had to guess at the dimensions for a lot of the model as precise measurements are not available. I'm working on a new version of this sim that incorporates the PTFE insert. My initial FEKO results didn't get interesting until around 6Ghz - while their frequency is listed as 1.047Ghz (for superconducting). Does anyone know what frequency they use for non-superconducting?
Frequency is tied to the physical dimensions of the resonator, not its conductivity. So they should be using the same frequency.
-
#3109 by SteveD on 12 Jun, 2016 17:03
-
was abandoned upon NASA's 2014 nullification of the claimed benefits of the grooved Cannae geometry, as NASA showed no difference between grooved and non-grooved geometries. NASA showed that the important thing regarding thrust for copper cavities is the insertion of a polymer insert (with a relative low value of electric permittivity ~2 closer to the one of vacuum ~1, which should not be confused with the inorganic dielectric with very high values of electric permittivity ~38 tried by Shawyer).
* This re-affirms NASA's 2014 experimental report findings of no significant anomalous force when not using a polymer insert, even when increasing the power input by a factor of 10
* This re-affirms Hackaday's Aachen team reports of finally "good" self-assessed results ONLY when using a polymer insert asymmetrically place inside the resonant cavity
Doc, I thought the original NASA findings said to use a dielectric if using a solid state and amp setup and to avoid a dielectric if using a magnetron.
It strikes me that a real world dielectric insert will not have uniform composition and will introduce some randomness into the dielectric permittivity of the cavity. Further, that the dielectric value of heated air in the cavity during an atmospheric test will also induce some level of randomness.
A magnetron, even one that has been cleaned up, is likely to experience small, random, fluctuations in output over a very short period of time.
By contrast, modern solid state electronics probably produce less fluctuation.
Given the current state of data including reported potential non-null results in magnetron setups without dielectric, including Shell's rumored success, I'm going to guess one question is how does use of a dielectric make a solid state signal behave more like the output of a magnetron?
This conclusion could, of course, change if a test regime were to clearly show no force without a dielectric yet force with it. Given the issues involved, it would seem like the best testing regime for a dielectric inserts matter hypothesis would be:
1. Magnetron run without dielectric
2. Solid state run without dielectric at some resonance frequency as the magnetron run
3. Solid state run with dielectric at the resulting, modified, resonance frequency
With all runs attempting to utilize the same mode shape. -
#3110 by Rodal on 12 Jun, 2016 17:15
-
was abandoned upon NASA's 2014 nullification of the claimed benefits of the grooved Cannae geometry, as NASA showed no difference between grooved and non-grooved geometries. NASA showed that the important thing regarding thrust for copper cavities is the insertion of a polymer insert (with a relative low value of electric permittivity ~2 closer to the one of vacuum ~1, which should not be confused with the inorganic dielectric with very high values of electric permittivity ~38 tried by Shawyer).
* This re-affirms NASA's 2014 experimental report findings of no significant anomalous force when not using a polymer insert, even when increasing the power input by a factor of 10
* This re-affirms Hackaday's Aachen team reports of finally "good" self-assessed results ONLY when using a polymer insert asymmetrically place inside the resonant cavity
Doc, I thought the original NASA findings said to use a dielectric if using a solid state and amp setup and to avoid a dielectric if using a magnetron.
....
Nowhere, has anybody from NASA's Eagleworks team has ever said or written "to avoid a dielectric if using a magnetron" to my knowledge, nor is that correct from my understanding of their experiments and proposed theories. (*)
Please provide the reference where anybody from NASA Eagleworks has ever said or written "to avoid a dielectric if using a magnetron". Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------
Also, again, the purpose of the polymer insert in NASA's experiments is not one of a dielectric based on the electric permittivity (as in Shawyer's experiments with an inorganic dielectric with relative permittivity ~38), since NASA used polymers with relative permittivity ~2 closer to the one of air or vacuum ~1. The purpose of NASA's polymer insert may be due instead to electrostriction effects and on its polymer chain orientation anisotropy.
Again: electrostriction instead of dielectric effects.
--------------
(*) what they did was to propose to investigate a magnetron excitation as the magnetron (amplitude, frequency and phase) modulation may be benefitial. When reviewing their statements and data always try to compare results:
1) in terms of anomalous force/InputPower and not just the anomalous force measured with different input powers
2) conducted in the same type of experiment: teeter totters are notoriously bad to measure micro-thrust because they lack rotational stiffness hence the response is entirely governed by the viscous damping element which is difficult to characterize
3) compare results in terms of force/InputPower, for the same measuring instrument (preferably a torsional pendulum) with and without a polymer insert -
#3111 by SeeShells on 12 Jun, 2016 17:55
-
RF is RF, what I mean is it matters not the source, the cavity could care less. I can take a solid state microwave source and drive with a good signal generator and make the output "look" like a magnetron. I can take a magnetron clean it up and gain a stable 1MHz to look like a SS RF source or introduce a little AC modulation to cause it to splatter more.
was abandoned upon NASA's 2014 nullification of the claimed benefits of the grooved Cannae geometry, as NASA showed no difference between grooved and non-grooved geometries. NASA showed that the important thing regarding thrust for copper cavities is the insertion of a polymer insert (with a relative low value of electric permittivity ~2 closer to the one of vacuum ~1, which should not be confused with the inorganic dielectric with very high values of electric permittivity ~38 tried by Shawyer).
* This re-affirms NASA's 2014 experimental report findings of no significant anomalous force when not using a polymer insert, even when increasing the power input by a factor of 10
* This re-affirms Hackaday's Aachen team reports of finally "good" self-assessed results ONLY when using a polymer insert asymmetrically place inside the resonant cavity
Doc, I thought the original NASA findings said to use a dielectric if using a solid state and amp setup and to avoid a dielectric if using a magnetron.
....
Nowhere, has anybody from NASA's Eagleworks team has ever said or written "to avoid a dielectric if using a magnetron" to my knowledge, nor is that correct from my understanding of their experiments and proposed theories.
Also, again, the purpose of the polymer insert in NASA's experiments is not one of a dielectric based on the electric permittivity (as in Shawyer's experiments with an inorganic dielectric with relative permittivity ~38), since NASA used polymers with relative permittivity ~2 closer to the one of air or vacuum ~1. The purpose of NASA's polymer insert may be due instead to electrostriction effects and on its polymer chain orientation anisotropy.
The reason I'm using a magnetron is (power!) I can clean up the output and stabilize it from splatter and I have built a tunable frustum that negates the thermal expansion issues that have plagued other designs. The magnetron isn't on the frustum to cause thermal issues. It works and isn't that what we're looking to do?
All RF sources will give you harmonics but if the Fo main center frequency is jittery the harmonics travel with it. This will have the effect of the Fo center frequency or a harmonic in a high Q cavity to sweep past the resonate mode only exciting for a small portion of time the thrusts in the cavity.
The key for me was to select the correct frustum size that the RF harmonics do not excite the other operational modes (harmonics) in the frustum. It also helps to "force" a mode with a waveguides and or antenna(s) placement and design.
These facts are driving my (hopefully) final test bed design.
Teeter totter and Torsional wire pendulum on the same bed
Off carriage power
On carriage power via battery source
Clean stable high power RF source >500 watts (less with SS RF)
Tunable frustum
Thermally stable frustum
Dual symmetrical placed antennas (waveguides also) forcing a TE012 mode
-
#3112 by FattyLumpkin on 12 Jun, 2016 17:58
-
X_Ray, here is the PDF patent for the FIRST image seen (attached) please note:drawings of the invention are at the end of the document. http://rexresearch.com/fetta/WO2007089284A2.pdf
I perused it (it is lengthy), but could not locate a specific frequency. There is a large amount of information in the document which might lead you to the frequency you are looking for.
Only the PDF has all of the images and schematics. More info. on the second image coming
-
#3113 by LowerAtmosphere on 12 Jun, 2016 18:23
-
"Radial Electric/Magnetic Fields
Suffice it to say that ultrahigh-intensity tabletop lasers have been used to generate extreme electric and magnetic field strengths in the lab. Ultrahigh-intensity lasers use the chirped-pulse amplification (CPA) technique to boost the total output beam power. All laser systems simply repackage energy as a coherent package of optical power, but CPA lasers repackage the laser pulse itself during the amplification process. In typical high-power short-pulse laser systems, it is the peak intensity, not the energy or the fluence, which causes pulse distortion or laser damage. However, the CPA laser dissects a laser pulse according to its frequency components, and reorders it into a time-stretched lower-peak-intensity pulse of the same energy (Perry, 1996; 2000; Mourou, Barty and Perry, 1998). This benign pulse can then be amplified safely to high energy, and then only afterwards reconstituted as a very short pulse of enormous peak power – a pulse which could never itself have passed safely through the laser system (see Figure 2). Made more tractable in this way, the pulse can be amplified to substantial energies (with orders of magnitude greater peak power) without encountering intensity related problems.
The extreme output beam power, fields and physical conditions that have been achieved by ultrahigh-intensity
tabletop lasers are (Mourou, Barty and Perry, 1998):
We find from the above data that ultrahigh-intensity lasers can generate an electric field energy density of ~10^16 – 10^28 J/m3 and a magnetic field energy density of ~ 10^19 J/m^3. These energy densities are about the right order of magnitude to explore generating kilometer to AU sized wormholes. But that would be difficult to engineer on Earth. However, these energy densities are well above what would be required to explore the generation of microwormholes in the lab."
The idea is to resonate ultrahigh-intensity lasers instead of using a magnetron insert (may correspond to partially successful laser simulations by gustavo earlier).
Also, to disprove that the EM-Drive is a sort of scam Q-thruster, radiation must be measured near the more resonant end to make sure there is negligible leakage of any kind (I recommend shielding the end by gluing on a small thick insulating barrier with an InGaAs array inside).
Interesting readings:
https://www.rp-photonics.com/high_harmonic_generation.html
https://www.rp-photonics.com/enhancement_cavities.html
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936.pdf
Please ignore if idiotic,
Anon
-
#3114 by FattyLumpkin on 12 Jun, 2016 18:41
-
Dr. Rodal, Monomorphic, if memory serves, Cannae quite often will mill the inside of their cavities from two solid single pieces of material. I believe there still exists a video showing them milling a cavity out of niobium. The two disks of metal are then stir welded together, leaving us with only a FLAT disk of a certain thickness with the INTERNAL GEOMETRY REMAINING COMPLETELY HIDDEN. As to the slots, as I've read the patent several times I don't recall whether they represent numerous "small" cavities themselves or whether they are "openings" into a large cavity around the circumference of the device. It is far more likely the former. Am going to look for the video and read the document again. Even if the slots are removed there still exists a noticeable asymmetry to the cavity itself and not associated with end guide lengths (going to find reading glasses) PS: Dr. Rodal do you have a larger more detailed copy of the attached that you could post for us? , Thnx FL
-
#3115 by X_RaY on 12 Jun, 2016 18:53
-
X_Ray, here is the PDF patent for the FIRST image seen (attached) please note:drawings of the invention are at the end of the document. http://rexresearch.com/fetta/WO2007089284A2.pdf
I perused it (it is lengthy), but could not locate a specific frequency. There is a large amount of information in the document which might lead you to the frequency you are looking for.
Only the PDF has all of the images and schematics. More info. on the second image coming
Short question, do you like to build such a device?
I like the conical design, it's complicated enough to find the reason of possible thrust/force creation based on the more simple geometry.
-
#3116 by Rodal on 12 Jun, 2016 18:56
-
Dr. Rodal, Monomorphic, if memory serves, Cannae quite often will mill the inside of their cavities from two solid single pieces of material. I believe there still exists a video showing them milling a cavity out of niobium. The two disks of metal are then stir welded together, leaving us with only a FLAT disk of a certain thickness with the INTERNAL GEOMETRY REMAINING COMPLETELY HIDDEN. As to the slots, as I've read the patent several times I don't recall whether they represent numerous "small" cavities themselves or whether they are "openings" into a large cavity around the circumference of the device. It is far more likely the former. Am going to look for the video and read the document again. Even if the slots are removed there still exists a noticeable asymmetry to the cavity itself and not associated with end guide lengths (going to find reading glasses) PS: Dr. Rodal do you have a larger more detailed copy of the attached that you could post for us? , Thnx FL
1) I don't have a larger image
2) Instead of speculating on what Cannae may or may not do I gave you the patent history showing you that:
a) it was the Cannae patent previous to the NASA 2014 experimental report (NASA experiments that nullified the effect of the grooves) that included discussion of those grooves and did not discuss polymer inserts
b) the most recent Cannae patent (2015) drops all mention of grooves and instead focuses on the polymer insert, from its most important claim on (the first claim in the patent).
I am not interested in speculating on what Cannae may or may not hide from view or any such discussions about such intrigue. I am only interested in discussing factual evidence. The evidence from NASA's experiments was solid that these grooves do not make any difference. The factual evidence from Cannae's patents shows that their design has evolved away from those grooves.
Those grooves wavelength is much smaller than the radio-frequency wavelength at the natural frequency of resonance so it does not make sense to me that they should have ever made a significant difference. The NASA experimental results make sense to me.
There is no shame in experimenters investigating different designs. Actually it is quite good to have somebody like Guido Fetta that appears to learn from his experiments (==> grooves make no difference and polymer inserts appear to significantly increase anomalous force) and moves on to improved designs, learning from what doesn't work and adapting what works.
Also I like the fact that Guido Fetta:
1) Adopted (rather than fought) a torsional pendulum as the instrument of choice
2) Adopted (rather than fought) battery-operated self-integrated power in the experiments
3) Adopted (rather than fought) a vacuum chamber for partial vacuum experiments. -
#3117 by Rodal on 12 Jun, 2016 18:59
-
RF is RF, what I mean is it matters not the source, the cavity could care less. I can take a solid state microwave source and drive with a good signal generator and make the output "look" like a magnetron. I can take a magnetron clean it up and gain a stable 1MHz to look like a SS RF source or introduce a little AC modulation to cause it to splatter more.
was abandoned upon NASA's 2014 nullification of the claimed benefits of the grooved Cannae geometry, as NASA showed no difference between grooved and non-grooved geometries. NASA showed that the important thing regarding thrust for copper cavities is the insertion of a polymer insert (with a relative low value of electric permittivity ~2 closer to the one of vacuum ~1, which should not be confused with the inorganic dielectric with very high values of electric permittivity ~38 tried by Shawyer).
* This re-affirms NASA's 2014 experimental report findings of no significant anomalous force when not using a polymer insert, even when increasing the power input by a factor of 10
* This re-affirms Hackaday's Aachen team reports of finally "good" self-assessed results ONLY when using a polymer insert asymmetrically place inside the resonant cavity
Doc, I thought the original NASA findings said to use a dielectric if using a solid state and amp setup and to avoid a dielectric if using a magnetron.
....
Nowhere, has anybody from NASA's Eagleworks team has ever said or written "to avoid a dielectric if using a magnetron" to my knowledge, nor is that correct from my understanding of their experiments and proposed theories.
Also, again, the purpose of the polymer insert in NASA's experiments is not one of a dielectric based on the electric permittivity (as in Shawyer's experiments with an inorganic dielectric with relative permittivity ~38), since NASA used polymers with relative permittivity ~2 closer to the one of air or vacuum ~1. The purpose of NASA's polymer insert may be due instead to electrostriction effects and on its polymer chain orientation anisotropy.
The reason I'm using a magnetron is (power!) I can clean up the output and stabilize it from splatter and I have built a tunable frustum that negates the thermal expansion issues that have plagued other designs. The magnetron isn't on the frustum to cause thermal issues. It works and isn't that what we're looking to do?
All RF sources will give you harmonics but if the Fo main center frequency is jittery the harmonics travel with it. This will have the effect of the Fo center frequency or a harmonic in a high Q cavity to sweep past the resonate mode only exciting for a small portion of time the thrusts in the cavity.
The key for me was to select the correct frustum size that the RF harmonics do not excite the other operational modes (harmonics) in the frustum. It also helps to "force" a mode with a waveguides and or antenna(s) placement and design.
These facts are driving my (hopefully) final test bed design.
Teeter totter and Torsional wire pendulum on the same bed
Off carriage power
On carriage power via battery source
Clean stable high power RF source >500 watts (less with SS RF)
Tunable frustum
Thermally stable frustum
Dual symmetrical placed antennas (waveguides also) forcing a TE012 mode
I take it then that you agree that nowhere, has anybody from NASA's Eagleworks team has ever said or written "to avoid a dielectric if using a magnetron" to my knowledge, nor is that correct from your understanding of their experiments and proposed theories. -
#3118 by X_RaY on 12 Jun, 2016 20:12
-
touché...
...
I like the conical design, it's complicated enough to find the reason of possible thrust/force creation using the more simple geometry.
-
#3119 by SeeShells on 12 Jun, 2016 20:46
-
RF is RF, what I mean is it matters not the source, the cavity could care less. I can take a solid state microwave source and drive with a good signal generator and make the output "look" like a magnetron. I can take a magnetron clean it up and gain a stable 1MHz to look like a SS RF source or introduce a little AC modulation to cause it to splatter more.
was abandoned upon NASA's 2014 nullification of the claimed benefits of the grooved Cannae geometry, as NASA showed no difference between grooved and non-grooved geometries. NASA showed that the important thing regarding thrust for copper cavities is the insertion of a polymer insert (with a relative low value of electric permittivity ~2 closer to the one of vacuum ~1, which should not be confused with the inorganic dielectric with very high values of electric permittivity ~38 tried by Shawyer).
* This re-affirms NASA's 2014 experimental report findings of no significant anomalous force when not using a polymer insert, even when increasing the power input by a factor of 10
* This re-affirms Hackaday's Aachen team reports of finally "good" self-assessed results ONLY when using a polymer insert asymmetrically place inside the resonant cavity
Doc, I thought the original NASA findings said to use a dielectric if using a solid state and amp setup and to avoid a dielectric if using a magnetron.
....
Nowhere, has anybody from NASA's Eagleworks team has ever said or written "to avoid a dielectric if using a magnetron" to my knowledge, nor is that correct from my understanding of their experiments and proposed theories.
Also, again, the purpose of the polymer insert in NASA's experiments is not one of a dielectric based on the electric permittivity (as in Shawyer's experiments with an inorganic dielectric with relative permittivity ~38), since NASA used polymers with relative permittivity ~2 closer to the one of air or vacuum ~1. The purpose of NASA's polymer insert may be due instead to electrostriction effects and on its polymer chain orientation anisotropy.
The reason I'm using a magnetron is (power!) I can clean up the output and stabilize it from splatter and I have built a tunable frustum that negates the thermal expansion issues that have plagued other designs. The magnetron isn't on the frustum to cause thermal issues. It works and isn't that what we're looking to do?
All RF sources will give you harmonics but if the Fo main center frequency is jittery the harmonics travel with it. This will have the effect of the Fo center frequency or a harmonic in a high Q cavity to sweep past the resonate mode only exciting for a small portion of time the thrusts in the cavity.
The key for me was to select the correct frustum size that the RF harmonics do not excite the other operational modes (harmonics) in the frustum. It also helps to "force" a mode with a waveguides and or antenna(s) placement and design.
These facts are driving my (hopefully) final test bed design.
Teeter totter and Torsional wire pendulum on the same bed
Off carriage power
On carriage power via battery source
Clean stable high power RF source >500 watts (less with SS RF)
Tunable frustum
Thermally stable frustum
Dual symmetrical placed antennas (waveguides also) forcing a TE012 mode
I take it then that you agree that nowhere, has anybody from NASA's Eagleworks team has ever said or written "to avoid a dielectric if using a magnetron" to my knowledge, nor is that correct from your understanding of their experiments and proposed theories.
It has seemed to me to be the opposite.
Don't you find it interesting?
EagleWorks uses Dielectric
Woodward uses PZT
Combining dielectric inserts and PZTs in a way could be a key in unlocking EagleWorks and Dr. Woodward's theories by combining the two effects of the QV VP and Mach effect for seeing increased anomalies called thrust.
My feeling is by simply bouncing microwaves in an empty can, it's doing very little work other than heating the segments of mode shapes in the can and if there is an effect it's relying on the dielectric nitrogen in air to do its work.
My goal is to refine the mixing of the two, PZT and dielectrics. Mix the two theories. The how and why will have to wait until I'm done with my tests on my new rig.
Shell
