-
#1920 by WarpTech on 22 Oct, 2016 05:13
-
?
There are no currents on the surfaces of a perfect metal conductor in a TE mode in an electromagnetically resonant cavity. The boundary condition is that any electrical component parallel to a perfect electrical conductor is zero.
http://www.antenna-theory.com/tutorial/electromagnetics/electric-field-boundary-conditions.php
For an imperfect conductor, the magnitude of such currents is extremely small (see Jackson).
No offense, but there is some misunderstanding here. From the antenna-theory website you reference above, the very next paragraph says;
"Figure 3 shows us our first result: Et=0 (always). That is, the tangential Electric Field will always be zero on a metal surface. This is because the free charge will swim around and cancel it out, simply by the attractive nature of charge. And that is cool."
You somehow interpret this to mean that "There are no currents..." and ignore the parallel H field. This website says; "charge will swim around and cancel it out", which means that currents are flowing. If the H field is oscillating at 2.4 GHz, then those currents are "swimming" at 2.4 GHz and the an imperfect conductor will get hot, and the perfect conductor will just conduct without any heat losses.
The reference you gave me, pages #6 and #7, also agree that a parallel H field will drive currents in the metal. https://cas.web.cern.ch/cas/ZEUTHEN/Zeuthen-talks/170903/Schmueser-sc_cav.pdf
"• [parallel] magnetic field penetrates into wall with exponential attenuation, induces currents within skin depth"
If I wrap a transformer coil with a short circuit turn using a perfect conductor, the E field will be zero "0" and an enormous current will flow around that loop. The current will flow to oppose any change in the magnetic flux. That's what happens on the BC of a perfect conductor when a time varying H field is applied parallel to the conductor. A TE mode has an H field component parallel to the surface everywhere except right on the z-axis. Current flows around the circumference, and around the axis on the end plates.
In an imperfect conductor at 2.4GHz, the currents will be very small, because the resistance is very high. At lower frequency, the resistance will be lower and higher currents will flow. My equation for thrust is inversely proportional to frequency, so that's a good thing for scaling up the current and power.
I'm working on the Math. First I need to grasp what it is I'm calculating. Discussing it with words helps me to define the mathematics. I know that in a resonant circuit the power oscillates at "0" Power Factor, and therefore can't do any "work". So any work being done must occur due to "real" power being dissipated, at Power Factor = 1. The only place this is happening is where power is lost to dissipation, attenuation and real forces doing work. I appreciate your coaching and coaxing.
-
#1921 by ThinkerX on 22 Oct, 2016 06:55
-
Items a credible EM Drive theory needs to account for:
1 - Shape. The EM drive experiments that have produced 'thrust' were all frustums. Cylinders and other symmetrical shapes result in zero thrust. (Effectively confirmed by Zeller and Craft. Also, Shell abandoned an early design because the half-cone angle was too shallow.)
2 - Dielectrics. The EM drive designs that produced thrust all incorporated some form of dielectric insert. Those without dielectric inserts (almost) always resulted in zero thrust. This also ties in directly with false positive results with thermal heating (?) from a power cable. (Contrast EW with Yang. A *possible* exception here may be Rfmwguy's project).
3 - Evanescent Waves. There has been extensive commentary from the start (albeit with a long hiatus) that this device should produce substantial amounts of Evanescent Waves, regardless of whatever else it does. These waves, and their effect need to be accounted for. (many or most electrical engineers who have commented in these threads).
4 - Exponential Forces in Computer Models. None of these models that I am aware of simulate a period of more than 1/1000 of a second. Yet they do show forces going exponential within the cavity in a single direction. However, these forces are not in violation of thermodynamics and do not, in and of themselves, produce thrust, though they may affect whatever is causing thrust. These models also seem to accurately predict various mode shapes within the cavity. (witness the efforts of Aero and Monomorphic).
5 - Surges and Nulls. There have been repeated, yet isolated reports by various EM Drive experimenters of very high thrust. So far as I know, these 'surges' have not been consistently duplicated. Likewise, there are multiple EM drive experiments where the device produced no thrust, despite meeting other requirements. (Shell, Rfmwguy, Traveler, possibly Yang and EW).
Omissions? Errors? Additions?
-
#1922 by Rodal on 22 Oct, 2016 13:41
-
...You somehow interpret this to mean that "There are no currents..." and ignore the parallel H field. ...
That statement misrepresents what I wrote. I wrote that there are no currents on the surfaces of a perfect metal conductor (Q=infinite) in a TE mode in an electromagnetically resonant cavity. I also wrote that for an imperfect conductor like copper (Q~50,000) , the magnitude of such currents is small.
A perfect electric conductor is a mathematical idealization to enable a simple boundary condition so that one can analytically solve the boundary value problem. A perfect electric conductor does not exist in Nature. All materials, including superconductors are imperfect in this sense. Using the perfect electric conductor boundary condition is a mathematical idealization that has served us well to solve myriads of electromagnetic problems. It can be shown that the magnitude of the currents that take place in an imperfect conductor like copper are so small that they do not appreciably affect the solution of the boundary value problem for the fields in the cavity.
Please read carefully my post:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1542032#msg1542032Further to this issue about Boundary Conditions, Jackson has an excellent discussion in his masterpiece Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd Edition, pages 352 to 356 (ISBN-10: 047130932X; ISBN-13: 978-0471309321). Pay special attention to the graph on page 355, Fig. 8.2 "Fields near the surface of a good, but not perfect conductor". For a good but not perfect conductor, for example copper as used in the EM Drive, and as modeled in Meep with the Drude equation model, a very tiny magnitude electric field parallel to the surface will be present, as well as a very tiny magnetic field perpendicular to the surface. The electric field parallel to the surface is inversely proportional to the square root of the conductivity:
This solution exhibits the expected rapid exponential decay (skin depth), and Pi/4 phase difference. For a good conductor, the fields inside the metal conductor are parallel to the surface and propagate normal to it, with magnitudes that depend only on the tangential magnetic field parallel to the surface, that exists just outside the surface of the metal conductor.
As shown in the graphs in Jackson's book, and as one can readily calculate these fields are practically zero, insignificant for copper, due to its very high conductivity. Therefore it is not a surprise that Meep does not show a significant difference in the fields calculated using the perfect conductor model vs. the Drude model. The main influence of the finite conductivity Drude model is to allow the calculation of a finite Q (instead of an infinite Q). But again, the boundary condition is such that the electric field parallel to the surface and the magnetic field perpendicular to the surface must be practically zero at the surface, due to the very high conductivity of copper. This is particularly so for the experiments of EM Drive where experimenters seek a high Q, which is tantamount to practically zero fields for these variables. It is completely inconsistent for EM Drive experimenters to advocate a high Q (Shawyer even claiming to research superconducting EM Drives) and not realize that these boundary conditions are such that these fields must be practically zero at the surface of the good conductor.
NOTE: for those not having ready access to Jackson's monograph, the following discussion by a professor at Duke University is also good: https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/phy319/phy319/node59.html
Where, to the opposite of what you state, I do not ignore the effect of the parallel H field. I am aware of it. I am just saying that the electric field that takes place as a consequence of the parallel H field is small enough that it does not appreciably affect the solution of the boundary value problem.
Due to the high conductivity of copper, the quality of resonance factor, Q is high for these cavities, ranging from thousands to almost a hundred thousand. This means that the heat dissipation taking place in the skin depth is small. TE Modes like TE012 and TE013 have the highest Q, which means that these currents on the walls are smallest for TE modes like TE012 and TE013.
If you disagree, please provide a numerical calculation of the numerical magnitude of these currents. If your point is that the currents are not small (which is the opposite of what I state, since I stated that they are small), please show us numerically how large are these currents, particularly for TE modes.
If you do agree that , as you state:Quote from: WarpTechIn an imperfect conductor at 2.4GHz, the currents will be very small,
and if you agree that copper at 2.4GHz is an imperfect conductor in the above sense, then ... we agree that these currents in TE modes at 2.4 GHz are small
as I originally stated, so there is no disagreement to be had...
-
#1923 by Kenjee on 22 Oct, 2016 15:08
-
Have a little question about miniaturization. Idea is to use small thin copper foil frustum with very small mass.
Here is everything in picture.
Sorry if its...
-
#1924 by dustinthewind on 22 Oct, 2016 16:08
-
Something seems wrong with the last equation
I think it may be correct. That is if the definition I give at the end is correct. See below:
-
#1925 by rfmwguy on 22 Oct, 2016 16:26
-
Items a credible EM Drive theory needs to account for:
1 - Shape. The EM drive experiments that have produced 'thrust' were all frustums. Cylinders and other symmetrical shapes result in zero thrust. (Effectively confirmed by Zeller and Craft. Also, Shell abandoned an early design because the half-cone angle was too shallow.)
2 - Dielectrics. The EM drive designs that produced thrust all incorporated some form of dielectric insert. Those without dielectric inserts (almost) always resulted in zero thrust. This also ties in directly with false positive results with thermal heating (?) from a power cable. (Contrast EW with Yang. A *possible* exception here may be Rfmwguy's project).
3 - Evanescent Waves. There has been extensive commentary from the start (albeit with a long hiatus) that this device should produce substantial amounts of Evanescent Waves, regardless of whatever else it does. These waves, and their effect need to be accounted for. (many or most electrical engineers who have commented in these threads).
4 - Exponential Forces in Computer Models. None of these models that I am aware of simulate a period of more than 1/1000 of a second. Yet they do show forces going exponential within the cavity in a single direction. However, these forces are not in violation of thermodynamics and do not, in and of themselves, produce thrust, though they may affect whatever is causing thrust. These models also seem to accurately predict various mode shapes within the cavity. (witness the efforts of Aero and Monomorphic).
5 - Surges and Nulls. There have been repeated, yet isolated reports by various EM Drive experimenters of very high thrust. So far as I know, these 'surges' have not been consistently duplicated. Likewise, there are multiple EM drive experiments where the device produced no thrust, despite meeting other requirements. (Shell, Rfmwguy, Traveler, possibly Yang and EW).
Omissions? Errors? Additions?
I would say that myself and shawyer are the outliers that had force production without a dielectric. Since I did not experiment with an insert, I cannot reach a conclusion that inserts enhance or retards force production.
If I take my hands-on RF experience into account, I would expect a lower Q with a dielectric insert. However, this is a new experimental device/configuration that likely does not behave in a predictable way that science fiction authors or classically-trained scientists expect.
If they would make the effort to design, build and test one to confirm "their" positions, it would go a long way to resolving a lot of arguments. Arguments without data are simply arguments. -
#1926 by X_RaY on 22 Oct, 2016 17:23
-
You are right, early this morning I didn't see or realized that there is also no sub"r" in the left hand equation inside the square root.Something seems wrong with the last equation
I think it may be correct. That is if the definition I give at the end is correct. See below:
-
#1927 by WarpTech on 22 Oct, 2016 18:00
-
Since i have no way to know the relative asymmetry in the Q or resistance of the frustum, I decided to use my equation to reverse engineer the existing data. There are several ways to look at this. I take the data for frequency, length, power and measured thrust, and derive the required asymmetry to make that possible. Q is no longer in the equation. In the results, the ratios are interchangeable, R2/R1 = tau2/tau1 = Q2/Q1. I chose resistance such that, hopefully it is obvious I am referring to power lost at unity Power Factor. Inductance and Capacitance are represented by the resonant frequency.
It seems, where there is thrust, the frustum appears as a short circuit in one direction, and has resistance of more than a couple of hundred ohms in the other direction. This is precisely what I found in X-Ray's simulation of Z from each end. The high end was ~ 500 Ohms. The low end was slightly negative, and might as well be zero.
(rfmwguy & seeshells, please feel free to update the attached spreadsheet with your data if you want to.)
Edit: Updated. Image had the TE and TM backwards, at least as I currently understand it.
Edit 2: Updated 1:04 pm: Added a few more data points, corrected some bad input data, included cone half-angle in length calculation and updated equations to distinguish between "L" for length and "L1" for inductance.
Edit 3: Updated 2:25 pm: Added rfmwguy's data to the table.
-
#1928 by dustinthewind on 22 Oct, 2016 19:07
-
I thought I would point out this document for WarpTech as he has been discussing thermal temperature. This document discusses the vacuum as having a temperature and carrying momentum. I am not sure it will be all that useful yet but thought of it as interesting. http://cds.cern.ch/record/368557
-
#1929 by rfmwguy on 22 Oct, 2016 19:53
-
Since i have no way to know the relative asymmetry in the Q or resistance of the frustum, I decided to use my equation to reverse engineer the existing data. There are several ways to look at this. I take the data for frequency, length, power and measured thrust, and derive the required asymmetry to make that possible. Q is no longer in the equation. In the results, the ratios are interchangeable, R2/R1 = tau2/tau1 = Q2/Q1. I chose resistance such that, hopefully it is obvious I am referring to power lost at unity Power Factor. Inductance and Capacitance are represented by the resonant frequency.
From Memory, here is my data for your spreadsheet:
It seems, where there is thrust, the frustum appears as a short circuit in one direction, and has resistance of more than a couple of hundred ohms in the other direction. This is precisely what I found in X-Ray's simulation of Z from each end. The high end was ~ 500 Ohms. The low end was slightly negative, and might as well be zero.
(rfmwguy & seeshells, please feel free to update the attached spreadsheet with your data if you want to.)
Edit: Updated. Image had the TE and TM backwards, at least as I currently understand it.
Insert: none
Freq: 2441 MHz
Mode: TM013
Length: 8.175 inches
Thrust: 18.4 mN
Power: 900W -
#1930 by WarpTech on 22 Oct, 2016 20:13
-
I thought I would point out this document for WarpTech as he has been discussing thermal temperature. This document discusses the vacuum as having a temperature and carrying momentum. I am not sure it will be all that useful yet but thought of it as interesting. http://cds.cern.ch/record/368557
Thanks. At first glance, this is pretty much identical to what is in Milonni's book, The Quantum Vacuum. -
#1931 by meberbs on 22 Oct, 2016 22:25
-
I am still confused by how you claim 18.4 mN of actual thrust, when your accidental control test showed the same amount of deflection. This post comparing the 2nd and 3rd graph shows the same change in voltage was measured for a test with a working and with a broken magnetron. There is not enough data to call it a null result, but it is at best inconclusive.Since i have no way to know the relative asymmetry in the Q or resistance of the frustum, I decided to use my equation to reverse engineer the existing data. There are several ways to look at this. I take the data for frequency, length, power and measured thrust, and derive the required asymmetry to make that possible. Q is no longer in the equation. In the results, the ratios are interchangeable, R2/R1 = tau2/tau1 = Q2/Q1. I chose resistance such that, hopefully it is obvious I am referring to power lost at unity Power Factor. Inductance and Capacitance are represented by the resonant frequency.
From Memory, here is my data for your spreadsheet:
It seems, where there is thrust, the frustum appears as a short circuit in one direction, and has resistance of more than a couple of hundred ohms in the other direction. This is precisely what I found in X-Ray's simulation of Z from each end. The high end was ~ 500 Ohms. The low end was slightly negative, and might as well be zero.
(rfmwguy & seeshells, please feel free to update the attached spreadsheet with your data if you want to.)
Edit: Updated. Image had the TE and TM backwards, at least as I currently understand it.
Insert: none
Freq: 2441 MHz
Mode: TM013
Length: 8.175 inches
Thrust: 18.4 mN
Power: 900W
If I am missing some reason the scales on those graphs can't be compared, please let me know. -
#1932 by WarpTech on 22 Oct, 2016 22:49
-
I am still confused by how you claim 18.4 mN of actual thrust, when your accidental control test showed the same amount of deflection. This post comparing the 2nd and 3rd graph shows the same change in voltage was measured for a test with a working and with a broken magnetron. There is not enough data to call it a null result, but it is at best inconclusive.Since i have no way to know the relative asymmetry in the Q or resistance of the frustum, I decided to use my equation to reverse engineer the existing data. There are several ways to look at this. I take the data for frequency, length, power and measured thrust, and derive the required asymmetry to make that possible. Q is no longer in the equation. In the results, the ratios are interchangeable, R2/R1 = tau2/tau1 = Q2/Q1. I chose resistance such that, hopefully it is obvious I am referring to power lost at unity Power Factor. Inductance and Capacitance are represented by the resonant frequency.
From Memory, here is my data for your spreadsheet:
It seems, where there is thrust, the frustum appears as a short circuit in one direction, and has resistance of more than a couple of hundred ohms in the other direction. This is precisely what I found in X-Ray's simulation of Z from each end. The high end was ~ 500 Ohms. The low end was slightly negative, and might as well be zero.
(rfmwguy & seeshells, please feel free to update the attached spreadsheet with your data if you want to.)
Edit: Updated. Image had the TE and TM backwards, at least as I currently understand it.
Insert: none
Freq: 2441 MHz
Mode: TM013
Length: 8.175 inches
Thrust: 18.4 mN
Power: 900W
If I am missing some reason the scales on those graphs can't be compared, please let me know.
At this point in the process, I really don't care. I don't think any of this data is in any way "conclusive". The reported input power is the power rating on the Magnetron. We know the RL is not zero, so we don't really know what the actually input power to the cavity was. Nor, do we actually know what the loaded Q was, or the mode being excited. All I'm doing at the moment is throwing darts at a dart board and seeing where they land.
Attached is a scatter plot of the Thrust/Power ratio vs my logarithmic Asymmetry factor. Those experiments that had a higher thrust to power ratio, also had a lower (negative) Asymmetry value. Cannae's drive had the greatest (lowest negative) asymmetry factor, believe it or not, by 1.5 orders of magnitude... because it has the shortest length. @rfmwguy's data falls within a group of 3 different experiments. If we're looking for repeatability, this group seems to imply there is something going on at these values.
Edit: Corrected left axis to match that I changed to mN
Edit: Updated to show Superconducting value in Orange.
Edit: Updated to include Cannae Copper, non-superconducting data.
-
#1933 by Rodal on 22 Oct, 2016 23:08
-
...
The Cannae test you plotted, was for a superconducting test claimed by Cannae.
At this point in the process, I really don't care. I don't think any of this data is in any way "conclusive". The reported input power is the power rating on the Magnetron. We know the RL is not zero, so we don't really know what the actually input power to the cavity was. Nor, do we actually know what the loaded Q was, or the mode being excited. All I'm doing at the moment is throwing darts at a dart board and seeing where they land.
Attached is a scatter plot of the Thrust/Power ratio vs my logarithmic Asymmetry factor. Those experiments that had a higher thrust to power ratio, also had a lower (negative) Asymmetry value. Cannae's drive had the greatest (lowest negative) asymmetry factor, believe it or not, by 1.5 orders of magnitude... because it has the shortest length. @rfmwguy's data falls within a group of 3 different experiments. If we're looking for repeatability, this group seems to imply there is something going on at these values.
No other test you plotted was for a superconducting cavity, so that test should be marked with a different marker/color to point out the difference between copper cavities and the superconducting one (I know that you denoted this by SC).
It would be helpful if you would plot the data for the copper Cannae tests for comparison (if you don't know where to get the data, please send me an email), so that you can properly note what difference the Cannae geometry makes, as compared to superconducting vs. copper. -
#1934 by rfmwguy on 23 Oct, 2016 00:46
-
Thanks Todd. Glad to know it's within a data cluster. Loaded Q and exact power are approximate, regardless the data appears to be in line with others. I recorded it without a comparison to anyone else like you have. Hope to have some more in a few months.
I am still confused by how you claim 18.4 mN of actual thrust, when your accidental control test showed the same amount of deflection. This post comparing the 2nd and 3rd graph shows the same change in voltage was measured for a test with a working and with a broken magnetron. There is not enough data to call it a null result, but it is at best inconclusive.Since i have no way to know the relative asymmetry in the Q or resistance of the frustum, I decided to use my equation to reverse engineer the existing data. There are several ways to look at this. I take the data for frequency, length, power and measured thrust, and derive the required asymmetry to make that possible. Q is no longer in the equation. In the results, the ratios are interchangeable, R2/R1 = tau2/tau1 = Q2/Q1. I chose resistance such that, hopefully it is obvious I am referring to power lost at unity Power Factor. Inductance and Capacitance are represented by the resonant frequency.
From Memory, here is my data for your spreadsheet:
It seems, where there is thrust, the frustum appears as a short circuit in one direction, and has resistance of more than a couple of hundred ohms in the other direction. This is precisely what I found in X-Ray's simulation of Z from each end. The high end was ~ 500 Ohms. The low end was slightly negative, and might as well be zero.
(rfmwguy & seeshells, please feel free to update the attached spreadsheet with your data if you want to.)
Edit: Updated. Image had the TE and TM backwards, at least as I currently understand it.
Insert: none
Freq: 2441 MHz
Mode: TM013
Length: 8.175 inches
Thrust: 18.4 mN
Power: 900W
If I am missing some reason the scales on those graphs can't be compared, please let me know.
At this point in the process, I really don't care. I don't think any of this data is in any way "conclusive". The reported input power is the power rating on the Magnetron. We know the RL is not zero, so we don't really know what the actually input power to the cavity was. Nor, do we actually know what the loaded Q was, or the mode being excited. All I'm doing at the moment is throwing darts at a dart board and seeing where they land.
Attached is a scatter plot of the Thrust/Power ratio vs my logarithmic Asymmetry factor. Those experiments that had a higher thrust to power ratio, also had a lower (negative) Asymmetry value. Cannae's drive had the greatest (lowest negative) asymmetry factor, believe it or not, by 1.5 orders of magnitude... because it has the shortest length. @rfmwguy's data falls within a group of 3 different experiments. If we're looking for repeatability, this group seems to imply there is something going on at these values.
Edit: Corrected left axis to match that I changed to mN
Edit: Updated to show Superconducting value in Orange. -
#1935 by Rodal on 23 Oct, 2016 03:22
-
...
Thank you for updating with the Cannae Copper.
Edit: Updated to include Cannae Copper, non-superconducting data.
All the tests that are showing in clusters with significant Thrust/Power were conducted in air. All those results may all be experimental artifacts due to thermal convection, and if so of no use for Space Propulsion.
So how about plotting another plot with only the tests performed in partial vacuum ?(NASA March and TU Dresden Tajmar). Otherwise those results in partial vacuum are so small that they get buried in the big plot, and it is difficult to see them as other than a practical "zero", in comparison. -
#1936 by ThinkerX on 23 Oct, 2016 04:06
-
Quote
So how about plotting another plot with only the tests performed in partial vacuum ?(NASA March and TU Dresden Tajmar). Otherwise those results in partial vacuum are so small that they get buried in the big plot, and it is difficult to see them as other than a practical "zero", in comparison.
Didn't the Cannae team test their device in a vacuum? -
#1937 by Rodal on 23 Oct, 2016 13:02
-
The Cannae test data plotted by Todd is for tests that were not done in a vacuum.QuoteSo how about plotting another plot with only the tests performed in partial vacuum ?(NASA March and TU Dresden Tajmar). Otherwise those results in partial vacuum are so small that they get buried in the big plot, and it is difficult to see them as other than a practical "zero", in comparison.
Didn't the Cannae team test their device in a vacuum?
The copper Cannae data plotted are the tests conducted at NASA Eagleworks, which were tested at ambient pressure, and reported in the AIAA Conference paper 2014. The superconducting Cannae test data is from the 2011 test performed at ambient pressure and later reported by Fetta in an AIAA conference.
There is no data released by Cannae for any tests performed in a partial vacuum, that I know of. If anybody has such data, please post it at NSF. Thanks. -
#1938 by Rodal on 23 Oct, 2016 13:07
-
...
Edit: Corrected left axis to match that I changed to mN
Edit: Updated to show Superconducting value in Orange.
Edit: Updated to include Cannae Copper, non-superconducting data.
All the tests that are showing in clusters with significant Thrust/Power were conducted in air., at ambient pressure All those test results in air may all be experimental artifacts due to thermal convection, and if so of no use for Space Propulsion.
The present plot serves to dramatize the huge difference between the thrust/power of the EM Drive tests conducted in air vs. the ones (by Tajmar and NASA) conducted in partial vacuum, that are puny in comparison.
When I plot your data as a simple Linear/Linear plot, I get this (click on this image to see it well),
which shows:
Since Log[R2/R1] is a linear function of Thrust/Power, times other factors (2L/Cos[theta]), it is not surprising that it shows a linear relationship with Thrust/Power:
-Log[R2/R1]= (Thrust/Power)* (2 omega * L/Cos[theta])
when the factor (2 omega * L/Cos[theta]) does not change much between different experiments
Notes:
1) The only outlier from the regression line is the Cannae Superconducting
2) I did not plot the Cannae copper cavity data because as of this time WarpTech had not included the copper Cannae data on the spreadsheet he posted (he only included the copper Cannae in the plot, he did not update the spreadsheet link)
3) For consistency with WarpTech I plotted "Yang 3" data as done by WarpTech, but this is statistically questionable, as he plotted it +/-Thrust relative error data as being +Thrust, while the objective statistical plotting of "Yang 3" would be a zero.
-
#1939 by Rodal on 23 Oct, 2016 15:06
-
Could you also plot the data in Log-Log plot so that the only tests performed in a partial vacuum (by NASA-March-White and by TU Dresden-Tajmar) can be seen as a positive quantity instead of zero?
As presently plotted in WarpTech's plot, the EM Drive appears as an experimental artifact (since the tests performed in partial vacuum appear as a "zero" and the tests that appear significant are the ones performed in air).
It would also be interesting to see this data plotted in Log-Log (instead of semi-Log) to see the data as a line, as most data appears linear when plotted in Log-Log, and this is useful to calculate its slope. The present data, as plotted in semi-Log, shows a nonlinear relationship.
Data displayed in Log-Log plot
Excellent R2 = 0.99 Only for Truncated Cones, (without Cannae geometry)
Notes:
1) The only outliers from the regression line are the Cannae Superconducting and Cannae copper that have their own individual regression line. This shows the difference between the Cannae geometry and the truncated cone geometry
2) For consistency with WarpTech I plotted "Yang 3" data as done by WarpTech, but this is statistically questionable, as he plotted it +/-Thrust relative error data as being +Thrust, while the objective statistical plotting of "Yang 3" would be a zero.
(click on image to see it well)
as I originally stated, so there is no disagreement to be had...
