-
#440
by
rfmwguy
on 23 Mar, 2016 15:04
-
...Thank you for the clarification. The natural question is now "Are you building your own version of the EMdrive?".
I think your answer to this will clear it up for science writers who visit NSF.
The EM Drive is a completely closed metallic cavity. I am not presently building a completely closed metallic cavity.
Thank you Dr Rodal. The rephrased question remains, are you building your own version of a propellantless and/or electromagnetic thruster? (This sets aside the nomenclature of EMDrive being a closed metallic cavity which you correctly pointed out). Thank you in advance for your reply.
Off topic 
for this thread <<EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications>>
Dr Rodal, I totally understand and personally wish you the best of luck. Welcome to the (emdrive or whatever) builders club.
-
#441
by
Monomorphic
on 23 Mar, 2016 15:08
-
I get something like this for the internal geometry of the c-band and superconducting. Left is flat end-plates, the right is curved. Will run sweep on flat geometry first.
-
#442
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Mar, 2016 15:12
-
...Thank you for the clarification. The natural question is now "Are you building your own version of the EMdrive?".
I think your answer to this will clear it up for science writers who visit NSF.
The EM Drive is a completely closed metallic cavity. I am not presently building a completely closed metallic cavity.
Thank you Dr Rodal. The rephrased question remains, are you building your own version of a propellantless and/or electromagnetic thruster? (This sets aside the nomenclature of EMDrive being a closed metallic cavity which you correctly pointed out). Thank you in advance for your reply.
Off topic for this thread <<EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications>>
(mod note - Dr Rodal is pursuing something without disclosure and without us asking too many questions...not that we're not curious, but that's the way it is
)
-
#443
by
Rodal
on 23 Mar, 2016 15:13
-
I get something like this for the internal geometry of the c-band and superconducting. Left is flat end-plates, the right is curved. Will run sweep on flat geometry first.
Is the cavity at the left not axi-symmetric ?
In this picture it also looks looks not axi-symmetric:
Not sure whether this is an issue of parallax. If not axi-symmetric, why do people think it would be made not axi-symmetric ?
-
#444
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Mar, 2016 15:15
-
I get something like this for the internal geometry of the c-band and superconducting. Left is flat end-plates, the right is curved. Will run sweep on flat geometry first.
On the non cryo unit, you can also get a very good idea of where the cavity was excited and where the smaller sample port was located.
-
#445
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Mar, 2016 15:18
-
Not sure whether this is an issue of parallax. If not axi-symmetric, why do people think it would be made not axi-symmetric ?
Much better image of the C band thruster is attached.
-
#446
by
Rodal
on 23 Mar, 2016 15:22
-
Not sure whether this is an issue of parallax. If not axi-symmetric, why do people think it would be made not axi-symmetric ?
Much better image of the C band thruster is attached.
Thank you. It appears to be axi-symmetric in that picture. Makes more sense to me.
-
#447
by
Rodal
on 23 Mar, 2016 15:39
-
Much better image of the C band thruster is attached.
Somebody knowledgeable about permits, perhaps can clarify:
Isn't the C band (4 to 8 GHz) reserved for long-distance radio telecommunications ?
Can one use the C band for these purposes ? (or was the C band only used for R&D purposes and he would not be able to use it for commercial purposes?)
-
#448
by
Monomorphic
on 23 Mar, 2016 15:39
-
Is the cavity at the left not axi-symmetric ?
They are both axi-symmetric. I think it's just the perspective view I am using that makes it look weird.
I did a single frequency run first as the sweep take a while. This is at 6Ghz. Very interesting surface currents. Not sure which face Shawyer is injecting RF, so tried the other direction. Does anyone have an opinion which inject method I should use before I run the sweep?
-
#449
by
Monomorphic
on 23 Mar, 2016 15:42
-
Does anyone have an opinion which inject method I should use before I run the sweep?
Is Shawyer injecting RF into both of these coax or is one for spectrum analysis?
-
#450
by
rfmwguy
on 23 Mar, 2016 15:53
-
Does anyone have an opinion which inject method I should use before I run the sweep?
Is Shawyer injecting RF into both of these coax or is one for spectrum analysis?
Pure guess...alternative injection and sampling ports.
-
#451
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Mar, 2016 15:59
-
Much better image of the C band thruster is attached.
Somebody knowledgeable about permits, perhaps can clarify:
Isn't the C band (4 to 8 GHz) reserved for long-distance radio telecommunications ?
Can one use the C band for these purposes ? (or was the C band only used for R&D purposes and he would not be able to use it for commercial purposes?)
As I understand it Boeing designed the dual redundant Rf system based on space tech to work at 5.85GHz (C band). SPR then designed the Flight Thruster to work at that freq.
2nd sample port is visible on other photos of the Flight Thruster. It provides feedback to maintain freq is always at cavity resonance.
Flight Thruster electronics as attached.
-
#452
by
Monomorphic
on 23 Mar, 2016 16:01
-
I had the rf source oriented the wrong way for this geometry. Here is a familiar friend TE012. I think I have the top part too narrow (below cutoff). Just guessing at the dimensions.
-
#453
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Mar, 2016 16:03
-
I had the rf source oriented the wrong way for this geometry. Here is a familiar friend TE012. I think I have the top part too narrow (below cutoff). Just guessing at the dimensions.
Roger told me the Flight Thruster worked in TE013 mode.
BTW the attached is not a round cryo thruster. It is more like a thick slice of Pizza that has a circular bite taken out of the pointy end.
-
#454
by
Monomorphic
on 23 Mar, 2016 16:04
-
Roger told me the Flight Thruster worked in TE013 mode.
This would probably be TE013 if the top weren't cut off. I will have to try different dimensions.
-
#455
by
rfmwguy
on 23 Mar, 2016 16:05
-
Much better image of the C band thruster is attached.
Somebody knowledgeable about permits, perhaps can clarify:
Isn't the C band (4 to 8 GHz) reserved for long-distance radio telecommunications ?
Can one use the C band for these purposes ? (or was the C band only used for R&D purposes and he would not be able to use it for commercial purposes?)
Its all over the map:
http://www.tech-faq.com/c-band.shtml
-
#456
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Mar, 2016 16:07
-
Much better image of the C band thruster is attached.
Somebody knowledgeable about permits, perhaps can clarify:
Isn't the C band (4 to 8 GHz) reserved for long-distance radio telecommunications ?
Can one use the C band for these purposes ? (or was the C band only used for R&D purposes and he would not be able to use it for commercial purposes?)
Its all over the map:
http://www.tech-faq.com/c-band.shtml
As I understand it the 5.85GHz that the Flight Thruster worked at was decided by Boeing.
-
#457
by
rfmwguy
on 23 Mar, 2016 16:21
-
Much better image of the C band thruster is attached.
Somebody knowledgeable about permits, perhaps can clarify:
Isn't the C band (4 to 8 GHz) reserved for long-distance radio telecommunications ?
Can one use the C band for these purposes ? (or was the C band only used for R&D purposes and he would not be able to use it for commercial purposes?)
Its all over the map:
http://www.tech-faq.com/c-band.shtml
As I understand it the 5.85GHz that the Flight Thruster worked at was decided by Boeing.
I've been out of satcom for years, but C band dishes disappeared long ago from people's yards. I haven't followed re-allocation of the band...if there has been one. Would have to think so since its been underutilized in recent years:
Direct broadcast satellite TV downlink (Europe) 11.7 to 12.5 GHz
Direct broadcast satellite TV downlink (US) for example, Echostar's Dish Network 12.2 to 12.7 GHz
-
#458
by
TheTraveller
on 23 Mar, 2016 17:25
-
Seems a race is on.
May the best propellantless propulsion tech win.
While the worldwide DIY EmDrive builder community shares plans for anyone to replicate.
-
#459
by
Rodal
on 23 Mar, 2016 17:26
-
I had the rf source oriented the wrong way for this geometry. Here is a familiar friend TE012. I think I have the top part too narrow (below cutoff). Just guessing at the dimensions.
Roger told me the Flight Thruster worked in TE013 mode.
BTW the attached is not a round cryo thruster. It is more like a thick slice of Pizza that has a circular bite taken out of the pointy end.
The drawing
was previously interpreted as a truncated spherical cone by others in previous EM Drive threads (if my memory is correct, there may have even been 3-D CAD renderings of such interpretation), which is a possible interpretation if one imagines the drawing to be a cross-section that can be rotated by 360 degrees about a vertical axis of axi-symmetry to form a solid spherical truncated cone (albeit excluding certain obvious left-right asymmetries, for example the RF feeding, etc.).
I assume (please correct me I am wrong) that Shawyer has disclosed to you that this is not representing a cross-section of a truncated spherical cone but instead it is
more like a thick slice of Pizza that has a circular bite taken out of the
small end.
Or that you have arrived at that conclusion based on Shawyer documents.
for this thread <<EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications>>
)