-
#840
by
Monomorphic
on 02 Apr, 2016 22:21
-
Frustum data attached. Flanges were not built. Frustum ends were ground flat. End plates used gravity for attachment. All internal surfaces were highly polished.
I didn't see TE013 with those dimensions at that frequency. Are you using a specially shaped antenna to excite the TE013 mode?
Note, I am using a monopole antenna here.
-
#841
by
Monomorphic
on 02 Apr, 2016 22:48
-
Are you using a specially shaped antenna to excite the TE013 mode?
I had to use a dipole antenna to get close to TE013. It's still a little distorted as you can see from the surface currents.
-
#842
by
SeeShells
on 03 Apr, 2016 01:28
-
Are you using a specially shaped antenna to excite the TE013 mode?
I had to use a dipole antenna to get close to TE013. It's still a little distorted as you can see from the surface currents.
Hey Mono I thought he was using a loop antenna?
Shell
-
#843
by
Monomorphic
on 03 Apr, 2016 02:53
-
Hey Mono I thought he was using a loop antenna?
Do we know the circumference of the loop? This is using a standard loop antenna with circumference close to the wavelength of 2.4053Ghz.
-
#844
by
Rodal
on 03 Apr, 2016 02:57
-
Hey Mono I thought he was using a loop antenna?
Do we know the circumference of the loop? This is using a standard loop antenna with circumference close to the wavelength of 2.4053Ghz.
Definitely
not TE013 ... this is not even any TE0np mode shape.
just look at "m": no way it is zero, since for m=0 the field would need to be constant in the circumferential (azimuthal) direction
-
#845
by
SeeShells
on 03 Apr, 2016 04:09
-
Hey Mono I thought he was using a loop antenna?
Do we know the circumference of the loop? This is using a standard loop antenna with circumference close to the wavelength of 2.4053Ghz.
Definitely not TE013 ... this is not even any TE0np mode shape.
just look at "m": no way it is zero, since for m=0 the field would need to be constant in the circumferential (azimuthal) direction
That's strange because we ran TT's cavity using FEKO before and it showed up as a TE013. Even I could see it. Tried to search it here, but it's tough using this search engine. Even when I input TE013 and searched for Rodal posts it didn't show up.
Shell
PS: I fixed my HV power supply, rewound some of the xformer winding and fixed the damage, ordered a couple caps.
-
#846
by
TheTraveller
on 03 Apr, 2016 06:47
-
I have only 1 issue that needs to be resolved at the moment in taking my 0.4N EmDrive S band thruster to market.
Finding a hard / high vac test chamber that will be able to test my 0.4N S band thruster for 2 weeks continuous operation. Vac chamber also needs to supply 1.8KW DC power to the thruster.
After that the space industry will need to learn to deal with the reality that the EmDrive works and is commercially available.
BTW, my 0.4N EmDrive S band thruster, if attached to the ISS, will increase orbital velocity by 1m/sec every 12 days. So no more ISS reboosts. Cost to the ISS is an increased electrical load of 1.8kW and 1.8KW or a bit less of waste heat to deal with. Can be mounted internal to the station & easily turned off during docking or departure.
Like SpX, who came from no where and is now very disruptive to the chemical Old Space launch industry, so to will Shawyer Effect Propulsion's 0.4N EmDrive thruster be disruptive to the in space propulsion industry.
BTW "Shawyer Effect Propulsion" is used with permission from Roger Shawyer.
2016 is going to be such an interesting year.
-
#847
by
ThinkerX
on 03 Apr, 2016 07:28
-
Traveler, might I suggest a lot more testing before pitching this to the ISS people? The rotary model would be a good start.
I point out that the vacuum chamber results thus far have been far less impressive than the open air tests. That issue alone is liable to require months, if not years of careful experimentation. Witness Eagleworks.
0.4 N in an atmosphere is one thing. 0.4 N in a vacuum is something else. But even that would not automatically translate to 0.4 N in space.
Just pointing out this whole thing is still in the very early stages yet.
-
#848
by
TheTraveller
on 03 Apr, 2016 07:39
-
Traveler, might I suggest a lot more testing before pitching this to the ISS people? The rotary model would be a good start.
I point out that the vacuum chamber results thus far have been far less impressive than the open air tests. That issue alone is liable to require months, if not years of careful experimentation. Witness Eagleworks.
0.4 N in an atmosphere is one thing. 0.4 N in a vacuum is something else. But even that would not automatically translate to 0.4 N in space.
Just pointing out this whole thing is still in the very early stages yet.
I understand why the EW unit generates such a low reaction Force in vac. Will not effect my design. In fact if it was not for my advise and input to incresse it, the EW vac force would be so small, EW might be now closed down.
There is so much going on that can't be shared on NSF. My 8mN at 95W Rf is very real and I understand the very minor, if properly designed out, vac issues.
As I stated, there are no engineering issues that will stop the current 8mN at 95W Rf from scaling to 0.4N at 1kW Rf other than engineering hours & $$, which I'm funding.
-
#849
by
Eusa
on 03 Apr, 2016 07:53
-
I have my theory of vacuum energy quanta.
The thrust would be based on standing waves which guide quanta. The cavity form is a cone closed with spherical reflectors at top and bottom. The distance from bottom to top must be exactly the multiple of the wavelength of radiation....
Is there a more extensive description giving more information?. If not so, can you supply more information on your theory of the g-drive and how you deal with conservation of momentum and conservation of energy? How can standing waves provide self-acceleration? Thanks
I haven't published any paper on my quantized vacuum energy theory but I can describe it briefly.
Simply, there are the flux of the vacuum energy that define the amount of space. The speed of quanta stream in the flux is the limit speed c. Every inertial body have comoving standing waves as gravity field as flux gradient. Standing spherical waves guide the vacuum energy to the space-support so that massive matter can exist as inertial particles. So the quanta stream propagates not from the gravitating body but towards the body.
The standing gravity field is possible the same as magnetic field but not coherent. So in the g-drive spherical standing waves guide the vacuum quanta towards smaller reflector. Because the outer vacuum gravity flux must be balanced for the gravity field for the needs of gravitating objects, it's only way for the g-drive to accelerate to the same direction where the flux density was artificially thickened.
The energy and momentum are conserved via gravity field by accelerating other bodies. The changes in the gravity field propagates at speed of light.
Btw, if the accurate data of the fly-by anomalies were available, it could be checked if the explanation is the orientation of the asymmetric probe...
-
#850
by
X_RaY
on 03 Apr, 2016 07:59
-
Hey Mono I thought he was using a loop antenna?
Do we know the circumference of the loop? This is using a standard loop antenna with circumference close to the wavelength of 2.4053Ghz.
The circumference of a full wavelength seems way too big.
This may be the source of this freaky field pattern.
Try to use a circumference of max λ/4 of the guide wavelength of the frustum in the area where the antenna will be installed.
Also of interest may the orientation of the antenna itself.
This was discussed months ago in the Thread 4 (page ~80 and the following sides).
-
#851
by
Monomorphic
on 03 Apr, 2016 08:20
-
That's strange because we ran TT's cavity using FEKO before and it showed up as a TE013. Even I could see it. Tried to search it here, but it's tough using this search engine. Even when I input TE013 and searched for Rodal posts it didn't show up.
I think this is what Shell is referring to.
https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/434a5q/feko_movies_the_hunt_for_tm013/The movies have been deleted so I ran another quick sweep using a proper loop antenna. Looks like TE013 for these dimensions is between 2.39241Ghz and 2.39448Ghz
-
#852
by
Monomorphic
on 03 Apr, 2016 08:29
-
The circumference of a full wavelength seems way too big.
This may be the source of this freaky field pattern.
Try to use a circumference of max λ/4 of the guide wavelength of the frustum in the area where the antenna will be installed.
I tried λ/4 and got little to no difference in the pattern at 2.4053Ghz.
-
#853
by
X_RaY
on 03 Apr, 2016 08:53
-
The circumference of a full wavelength seems way too big.
This may be the source of this freaky field pattern.
Try to use a circumference of max λ/4 of the guide wavelength of the frustum in the area where the antenna will be installed.
I tried λ/4 and got little to no difference in the pattern at 2.4053Ghz.
Interesting. Its still not TE013.
Did you run a frequency sweep during this simulation in a wider range to look for TE013 pattern?
EDIT:
Could you so kind to post the cavity dimensions for this model please.
-
#854
by
Monomorphic
on 03 Apr, 2016 09:07
-
The circumference of a full wavelength seems way too big.
This may be the source of this freaky field pattern.
Try to use a circumference of max λ/4 of the guide wavelength of the frustum in the area where the antenna will be installed.
I tried λ/4 and got little to no difference in the pattern at 2.4053Ghz.
Interesting. Its still not TE013.
Did you run a frequency sweep during this simulation in a wider range to look for TE013 pattern?
EDIT:
Could you so kind to post the cavity dimensions for this model please.
I found TE013 between 2.39241Ghz and 2.39448Ghz. These dimensions are TT's. I don't have them in front of me as I'm mobile now, but they were just posted by him again recently.
-
#855
by
X_RaY
on 03 Apr, 2016 09:14
-
The circumference of a full wavelength seems way too big.
This may be the source of this freaky field pattern.
Try to use a circumference of max λ/4 of the guide wavelength of the frustum in the area where the antenna will be installed.
I tried λ/4 and got little to no difference in the pattern at 2.4053Ghz.
Interesting. Its still not TE013.
Did you run a frequency sweep during this simulation in a wider range to look for TE013 pattern?
EDIT:
Could you so kind to post the cavity dimensions for this model please.
I found TE013 between 2.39241Ghz and 2.39448Ghz. These dimensions are TT's. I don't have them in front of me as I'm mobile now, but they were just posted by him again recently.
May be this one:
bigDiameter = 0.259;
smallDiameter = 0.159;
axialLength = 0.288;
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1483411#msg1483411
-
#856
by
X_RaY
on 03 Apr, 2016 10:07
-
Using the dimensions above I get
perfect TE013 field pattern, the source is a single dipole near the big base.
(Canīt model a loop, still using FEKO Lite
)
Maybe the penetration point of your loop doesn't fits to the field pattern of this mode?
On the other hand we know EW also had problems using a loop to excite TE01. But if my memory is correct that was because other modes were very nearby rather than in general.
-
#857
by
Monomorphic
on 03 Apr, 2016 11:46
-
Using the dimensions above I get perfect TE013 field pattern, the source is a single dipole near the big base.
(Canīt model a loop, still using FEKO Lite )
We would need to see the surface currents to tell if it is perfect TE013. Are you using copper walls of 1mm thickness? What are the settings for your electric dipole? I am getting even worse results using an electric dipole near the big-end.
-
#858
by
X_RaY
on 03 Apr, 2016 12:06
-
Using the dimensions above I get perfect TE013 field pattern, the source is a single dipole near the big base.
(Canīt model a loop, still using FEKO Lite )
We would need to see the surface currents to tell if it is perfect TE013. Are you using copper walls of 1mm thickness? What are the settings for your electric dipole? I am getting even worse results using an electric dipole near the big-end.
Sorry for the coarse grid. Units in cm.
EDIT
Choosing of this coordinates was a short shot.
The antenna position in this example is not optimized!
-
#859
by
Monomorphic
on 03 Apr, 2016 12:24
-
the source is a single dipole near the big base.
I had to duplicate your dipole settings to get ~TE013. Not only is it near the big end-plate, but it is offset to one side by over 5cm. This was critical in exciting the mode. To my knowledge, no one has injected RF in this location.
The surface current patterns aren't very clean for TE013. Like Dr. Rodal said, there should be distinct horizontal/circumferential bars.
EDIT: I found an example of perfect TE013 in a truncated cone. It is the bottom image. Notice the clear surface currents.
)