I have stated what Roger told me. If you decide to ignore it, then so be it.
I built a frustum to test Roger's small end cutoff rule, which still showed FEKO resonance. I did not produce any force as Roger predicted. So as far as that FEKO model, it was wrong as there was no force producing resonance occurring in that frustum as the real world small end guide wavelength was beyond cutoff and not reflecting any significant amounts of photons back to the big end. Again you can accept that or not. I will not debate it.
Again, care to share what dimensions and frequency you used?
Also, there is a difference between no force generated and no resonance. You say you measured no force, but if you want to say that FEKO is wrong you have to show that there is no resonance (probably with a VNA sweep).
I have stated what Roger told me. If you decide to ignore it, then so be it.
I built a frustum to test Roger's small end cutoff rule, which still showed FEKO resonance. I did not produce any force as Roger predicted. So as far as that FEKO model, it was wrong as there was no force producing resonance occurring in that frustum as the real world small end guide wavelength was beyond cutoff and not reflecting any significant amounts of photons back to the big end. Again you can accept that or not. I will not debate it.
Again, care to share what dimensions and frequency you used?
Also, there is a difference between no force generated and no resonance. You say you measured no force, but if you want to say that FEKO is wrong you have to show that there is no resonance (probably with a VNA sweep).
My point was Roger was correct there was no force generated when the small end diameter broke his 0.82 rule, despite FEKO showing there was resonance.
Tell you what, show me ANY sim that can plot guide wavelength changes as the diameter varies. I can as can Roger.
Then have that same sim plot Em wave momentum change as the guide wavelength changes. And yes I can also do that as well.
He should get rid of the stoppers. If he needs more damping he should use heavier oil and/or even better have another oil bath dampening motion symmetrically placed from the center of torsion .
I agree he needs a central oil damper and to be able to disable the side stoppers during testing.
Reviewing the thermal video of Dave's frustum it looks like he somehow excited a TE01 where both endplates exhibit thermal increases from induced currents and the center section of the frustum remains cooler. At just over a minute into his run you can see where the thermal splits start to show in the video. I find this a red flag video as to what maybe happening in his frustum.
Shell
Hi Shell,
In TE01x mode the edges of the end plates would stay cool as in that mode all end plate eddy currents circulate around the end plate.
From that I can see of Jamie's sim and the video, the mode was TM01x as in that mode there are circular end plate currents but they flow onto the side walls.
See attached TE and TM end plate currents. Note the TE modes have no currents around the outer edge and TM modes do.
Also remember we are dealing with copper which is a great thermal conductor and will mask and blur signatures. If you watch the video you can see the thermal mode start to take shape, it's somewhat unclear other than seeing the small end heat up and then the large end follow.
Here is the kicker that just dawned on me and I'm glad you brought it up as well as Dr. Rodal. It could very well be
BOTH TE and TM modes are excited. Look at the thermal frame grab of the Small End, you do not see any side wall heating, not so on the Big End, you see the side walls heat up. We all may be right.
Shell
We all may be right.
Shell
which on one hand makes us all feel better, but on the other hand it also makes us feel worse when thinking that mode participation makes rfmwguy's test much more difficult to analyze
BTW I get resonance in TM013 at 2.469GHz which would be a good fit as it will match what his antenna placement can excite.
What is your FEKO resonance in that mode?
I see maximum resonance at 2.447GHz. The same TM013 resonance pattern exists across a sweep from 2.44 - 2.46Ghz - but it seems strongest at 2.447. I can't remember what his actual RL sweep showed.
Make sure you are using Dave's latest measured dimensions. See image, units in cm:
We all may be right.
Shell
which on one hand makes us all feel better, but on the other hand it also makes us feel worse when thinking that mode participation makes rfmwguy's test much more difficult to analyze
hahaha...
Who in the heck said this was easy! I even said this on my gofundme site last year.
"I discovered a way to do something good again, that fit my skills, to take what was a dream since childhood and make it a reality. I wanted to see us exploring the heavens and the solar system, we have fallen short. Not because it's easy, but because it's too hard. Here is our chance I believe to take that too hard and make it a reality to go where we dream."
This is where it's at Dr. Rodal, it pushes us all and it's a darn great puzzle.
Shell
It could very well be BOTH TE and TM modes are excited. Look at the thermal frame grab of the Small End, you do not see any side wall heating, not so on the Big End, you see the side walls heat up. We all may be right.
Shell
Shell,
Forget that is happening at the big end at it has a maggie using it as a heat sink.
What I see here is not a TE mode as the heat is building up around the edge of the small end plate, which is a TM mode. I did enhance the image to enforce the thermal differences.
This fits with my TM013 @ 2.469GHz analysis and Jamie's TM013 FEKO resonance at a yet to be announced freq.
I have stated what Roger told me. If you decide to ignore it, then so be it.
I built a frustum to test Roger's small end cutoff rule, which still showed FEKO resonance. I did not produce any force as Roger predicted. So as far as that FEKO model, it was wrong as there was no force producing resonance occurring in that frustum as the real world small end guide wavelength was beyond cutoff and not reflecting any significant amounts of photons back to the big end. Again you can accept that or not. I will not debate it.
Again, care to share what dimensions and frequency you used?
Also, there is a difference between no force generated and no resonance. You say you measured no force, but if you want to say that FEKO is wrong you have to show that there is no resonance (probably with a VNA sweep).
My point was Roger was correct there was no force generated when the small end diameter broke his 0.82 rule, despite FEKO showing there was resonance.
Tell you what, show me ANY sim that can plot guide wavelength changes as the diameter varies. I can as can Roger.
Then have that same sim plot Em wave momentum change as the guide wavelength changes. And yes I can also do that as well.
First, I would need you to provide a physical definition of guide wavelength for a resonating cavity. It is not straightforward to extend the definition of guide wavelength from a waveguide to a resonating cavity. I have some ideas for possible definitions, but haven't put in the time to work them through. (Note: in a waveguide, the definition of guide wavelength is the distance between surfaces of equal phase.)
Your original claim was that FEKO incorrectly predicts resonance. You made no statement at all about force generation. Saying "My point was Roger was correct there was no force generated" changes the subject entirely, since no standard physics predicts any force generation. If there is any resonance below the supposed "cutoff" then the statement you made below is wrong, independent of any force generation or not.
As I have said before, I have leaned FEKO does not properly handle what happens at the small end. It shows you can achieve resonance with a small end plate much smaller than Roger's limit, which I verified experimentally as being correct. Roger did tell me that even COMSOL gets the small end wrong and was they needed to develop their own in house simulation software to get frustum designs done right, the 1st time.
It could very well be BOTH TE and TM modes are excited. Look at the thermal frame grab of the Small End, you do not see any side wall heating, not so on the Big End, you see the side walls heat up. We all may be right.
Shell
Shell,
Forget that is happening at the big end at it has a maggie using it as a heat sink.
What I see here is not a TE mode as the heat is building up around the edge of the small end plate, which is a TM mode. I did enhance the image to enforce the thermal differences.
This fits with my TM013 @ 2.469GHz analysis and Jamie's TM013 FEKO resonance at a yet to be announced freq.
Watch the video closely as the maggie reaches resonance you can see the thermal band of heat being induced beyond what is being made by the maggie.
But that being said the Se is where EM mode thermal induction is taking place and seems to be the clearest.
Shell
I have stated what Roger told me. If you decide to ignore it, then so be it.
I built a frustum to test Roger's small end cutoff rule, which still showed FEKO resonance. I did not produce any force as Roger predicted. So as far as that FEKO model, it was wrong as there was no force producing resonance occurring in that frustum as the real world small end guide wavelength was beyond cutoff and not reflecting any significant amounts of photons back to the big end. Again you can accept that or not. I will not debate it.
Again, care to share what dimensions and frequency you used?
Also, there is a difference between no force generated and no resonance. You say you measured no force, but if you want to say that FEKO is wrong you have to show that there is no resonance (probably with a VNA sweep).
My point was Roger was correct there was no force generated when the small end diameter broke his 0.82 rule, despite FEKO showing there was resonance.
Tell you what, show me ANY sim that can plot guide wavelength changes as the diameter varies. I can as can Roger.
Then have that same sim plot Em wave momentum change as the guide wavelength changes. And yes I can also do that as well.
First, I would need you to provide a physical definition of guide wavelength for a resonating cavity. It is not straightforward to extend the definition of guide wavelength from a waveguide to a resonating cavity. I have some ideas for possible definitions, but haven't put in the time to work them through. (Note: in a waveguide, the definition of guide wavelength is the distance between surfaces of equal phase.)
Your original claim was that FEKO incorrectly predicts resonance. You made no statement at all about force generation. Saying "My point was Roger was correct there was no force generated" changes the subject entirely, since no standard physics predicts any force generation. If there is any resonance below the supposed "cutoff" then the statement you made below is wrong, independent of any force generation or not.
As I have said before, I have leaned FEKO does not properly handle what happens at the small end. It shows you can achieve resonance with a small end plate much smaller than Roger's limit, which I verified experimentally as being correct. Roger did tell me that even COMSOL gets the small end wrong and was they needed to develop their own in house simulation software to get frustum designs done right, the 1st time.
I not here to discuss or debate my experimental data as I'm not ready to release it, other than to say what you believe is correct is not correct and my statements stand as they are based on experimental data. Your definition of guide wavelength is not correct as inside a frustum it is continually changing. It needs to be calculated on a point by point basis, driven by mode, exciting freq and diameter change driving the ever changing cutoff wavelength.
I'm here to present Dave's experimental data, which he has given me permission to do.
It could very well be BOTH TE and TM modes are excited. Look at the thermal frame grab of the Small End, you do not see any side wall heating, not so on the Big End, you see the side walls heat up. We all may be right.
Shell
Shell,
Forget that is happening at the big end at it has a maggie using it as a heat sink.
What I see here is not a TE mode as the heat is building up around the edge of the small end plate, which is a TM mode. I did enhance the image to enforce the thermal differences.
This fits with my TM013 @ 2.469GHz analysis and Jamie's TM013 FEKO resonance at a yet to be announced freq.
Watch the video closely as the maggie reaches resonance you can see the thermal band of heat being induced beyond what is being made by the maggie.
But that being said the Se is where EM mode thermal induction is taking place and seems to be the clearest.
Shell
What I see in the small end eddy current driven heating is what I would expect to see from TM013 excitation which also matches my resonance analysis in TM013 mode plus the TM013 resonance freq is where the maggie splatter can be pulled into it and the antenna will excite TM modes and not TE modes.
Of course as the maggie continues to warm and it's splatter range changes, there are maybe nearby other modes that will be excited as the power spectrum of the Rf splatter energy inside the frustum alters. It must be a dog's breakfast inside that frustum as various frequencies and energy densities fight for resonance dominance.
Really glad I use a single freq highly stable Rf frequency plus solid state Rf amp, which has real time forward and reflected power feed back. At least that way you have a fighting change to understand and maybe control what is going on inside the frustum.
Criticism is never healthy.
One is certainly free to express and hold this uniquely binary viewpoint about experimentation. ... blah blah blah... Good luck with that approach.
I understand what you said and I accept your criticism of me. Thank you.
There is no criticism of you from me. You are free to choose your own interpretation of my remarks.
Many Americans, some of whom are scientists and experimenters, call criticism of ideas, approaches, experimental setups, reporting of data, and a host of other things, "criticism of me".
I can see that English is not your first language. What is your native language? I ask because I cannot parse a good meaning out of this sentence of yours:
But how can you continue your healthy criticism when you chase away people that put their effort to construct and test the devices that you and others for various resons can not and will not build and test?
The criticism than lose on its purpose.
As Jerry Garcia and the boys said... Keep on Truckin'
Don't forget Hot Tuna!
I not here to discuss or debate my experimental data as I'm not ready to release it, other than to say what you believe is correct is not correct and my statements stand as they are based on experimental data. Your definition of guide wavelength is not correct as inside a frustum it is continually changing. It needs to be calculated on a point by point basis, driven by mode, exciting freq and diameter change driving the ever changing cutoff wavelength.
I'm not debating your experimental data, I'm asking for the most basic information about how someone could run this experiment on cutoff, and pointing out when you contradict yourself.
Exactly as you said, the definition of guide wavelength does not extend to a resonating cavity. This is why I asked for your definition. You have to define what you are calculating before you actually do any calculations, otherwise you don't know what calculations to do.
I am not sure if you have ever actually answered any question I have ever asked, just like here you keep sidestepping basic questions. In this case I have asked you for a definition of guide wavelength, and I have also asked for dimensions and frequency of your "small end cutoff" test (not the results, just the basic setup).
I not here to discuss or debate my experimental data as I'm not ready to release it, other than to say what you believe is correct is not correct and my statements stand as they are based on experimental data. Your definition of guide wavelength is not correct as inside a frustum it is continually changing. It needs to be calculated on a point by point basis, driven by mode, exciting freq and diameter change driving the ever changing cutoff wavelength.
I'm not debating your experimental data, I'm asking for the most basic information about how someone could run this experiment on cutoff, and pointing out when you contradict yourself.
Exactly as you said, the definition of guide wavelength does not extend to a resonating cavity. This is why I asked for your definition. You have to define what you are calculating before you actually do any calculations, otherwise you don't know what calculations to do.
I am not sure if you have ever actually answered any question I have ever asked, just like here you keep sidestepping basic questions. In this case I have asked you for a definition of guide wavelength, and I have also asked for dimensions and frequency of your "small end cutoff" test (not the results, just the basic setup).
I have answered how to calculate the cutoff and from that the guide wavelength at any diameter point many times. It is used in my spreadsheet to calculate the resonance freq of a frustum design with good accuracy.
When my 2 new lab quality machined, highly polished and 3 layer plated Alum frustums arrive and I complete the rotary tests, the data from all the experiments that have been conducted will be released as well as the frustums and electronics will be made available for commercial purchase.
I not here to discuss or debate my experimental data as I'm not ready to release it, other than to say what you believe is correct is not correct and my statements stand as they are based on experimental data. Your definition of guide wavelength is not correct as inside a frustum it is continually changing. It needs to be calculated on a point by point basis, driven by mode, exciting freq and diameter change driving the ever changing cutoff wavelength.
I'm not debating your experimental data, I'm asking for the most basic information about how someone could run this experiment on cutoff, and pointing out when you contradict yourself.
Exactly as you said, the definition of guide wavelength does not extend to a resonating cavity. This is why I asked for your definition. You have to define what you are calculating before you actually do any calculations, otherwise you don't know what calculations to do.
I am not sure if you have ever actually answered any question I have ever asked, just like here you keep sidestepping basic questions. In this case I have asked you for a definition of guide wavelength, and I have also asked for dimensions and frequency of your "small end cutoff" test (not the results, just the basic setup).
I have answered how to calculate the cutoff and from that the guide wavelength at any diameter point many times. It is used in my spreadsheet to calculate the resonance freq of a frustum design with good accuracy.
When my 2 new lab quality machined, highly polished and 3 layer plated Alum frustums arrive and I complete the rotary tests, all the details of all the experiments that have been conducted will be released.
One more try:
That is not a definition of guide wavelength, that is you using the result derived from the definition for a circular waveguide in a situation (resonator) where we both just agreed that the original definition is inapplicable. A definition should relate to some (preferably measurable) physical aspect of the system.
Edit: Note that I asked for a definition, not how to calculate it. There often are multiple equivalent ways to calculate a physical quantity.
One more try:
That is not a definition of guide wavelength, that is you using the result derived from the definition for a circular waveguide in a situation (resonator) where we both just agreed that the original definition is inapplicable. A definition should relate to some (preferably measurable) physical aspect of the system.
That is your opinion. We did not just agree on anything. How it is calculated is based on known mode, external freq and diameter is standard microwave engineering available in any good microwave engineering reference book.
It is you who believes that method is not applicable inside a frustum. Have you even done an experiment to test your belief?
There is no point in further discussions. The only people I need to convince are my potential customers and my rotary video will do that.
That is your opinion. We did not just agree on anything. ...
First, I would need you to provide a physical definition of guide wavelength for a resonating cavity. It is not straightforward to extend the definition of guide wavelength from a waveguide to a resonating cavity.
...
(Note: in a waveguide, the definition of guide wavelength is the distance between surfaces of equal phase.)
Your definition of guide wavelength is not correct as inside a frustum it is continually changing. It needs to be calculated on a point by point basis, driven by mode, exciting freq and diameter change driving the ever changing cutoff wavelength.
I said that a new definition was needed for guide wavelength in resonators, and you responded by confirming that the definition for a waveguide does not apply to a resonator. How is this not agreement?
You seem to be having trouble with the difference between a definition and a calculation. If I have time later, I can provide some other examples if needed.
Also, it is a fact that Cullen's equation that you use was derived using the definition for a waveguide. So if the definition it was derived from is inapplicable, then equation is inapplicable. This is logic, not opinion. It may happen that an applicable definition would end up with the same equation, but no applicable definition has been provided, so this can't be determined yet.
...
When my 2 new lab quality machined, highly polished and 3 layer plated Alum frustums arrive and I complete the rotary tests, the data from all the experiments that have been conducted will be released as well as the frustums and electronics will be made available for commercial purchase.
Do you have an approximate ballpark
estimate as to when we will be able to see
self-contained battery powered tests reported ?
Or
who is further along to provide a self-contained battery powered test,? TheTraveller, rfmwguy, SeeShells or Monomorphic?
Thanks
...
...
When my 2 new lab quality machined, highly polished and 3 layer plated Alum frustums arrive and I complete the rotary tests, the data from all the experiments that have been conducted will be released as well as the frustums and electronics will be made available for commercial purchase.
I was under the impression you had already assembled your rotary test and had done tests. Also a few weeks ago you stated that you were going to ship evaluation units to customers. If you have not done any tests why would you go to the expense of shipping an untested prototype? It would be helpful if you would post photos of your experiments. A picture is worth 1,000 words.
Who in the heck said this was easy! I even said this on my gofundme site last year.