-
#2780 by WarpTech on 15 Nov, 2016 21:46
-
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
Don't be afraid to politely correct repeatedly. I had the same bad assumption until I just saw this. In these kind of threaded forums it's easy to forget what was said before.
Just curious, have you done some math on this?
Yes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761
You may be interested in this, as these arguments may be raised against theories tying gravity and entropy:
"Once more, gravity is not an entropic force"
Archil Kobakhidze
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51932409_Once_more_gravity_is_not_an_entropic_force
arXiv:1104.4650
https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161
To be honest, Verlinde's theory doesn't make a lot of sense to me because he uses the Unruh temperature, but then again neither does Hawking-Bekenstein's entropy theory, for the same reasoning.
In my model, temperature would go to "zero" at the event horizon of a black hole. The Unruh temperature does not go to zero there, which doesn't make sense because all motion is critically damped. The temperature should be zero, by definition.
In my model, I provide a specific Lagrangian density. Verlinde does not, and so Kobakhidze uses this against him to construct a Hamiltonian to prove it doesn't work. That trick won't work with my model, because I've already defined the proper Lagrangian.
Kobakhidze criticizes the model because the commutation relationships would be broken. In my model, the commutation relationships are "preserved" by the equilibrium condition between matter and vacuum, without which as Milonni puts it, "...the electron would spiral into the nucleus." Verlinde's model attempts to make "space-time" an emergent property of the theory. Whereas, in my model, space is what is measured with a ruler and time is what is measured with a clock.
-
#2781 by M.LeBel on 15 Nov, 2016 23:35
-
No, it won't. What I've said a bazzilion times but nobody seems to get it, is that the effective potential is equivalent to gravity, but only across the limited bandwidth of the frustum. True gravity have an enormous bandwidth, that isn't even relevant until it's in the soft X-ray spectrum and up from there. Gravity acts in the spectrum where matter is mostly transparent. The MW in the frustum are not high enough energy to create a real gravitational field, but they can mimic it within the narrow bandwidth of the resonance.
Don't be afraid to politely correct repeatedly. I had the same bad assumption until I just saw this. In these kind of threaded forums it's easy to forget what was said before.
Just curious, have you done some math on this?
Yes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308891927_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY_SLIDES
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305501551_AN_ENGINEERING_MODEL_OF_QUANTUM_GRAVITY
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1609761#msg1609761
You may be interested in this, as these arguments may be raised against theories tying gravity and entropy:
"Once more, gravity is not an entropic force"
Archil Kobakhidze
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51932409_Once_more_gravity_is_not_an_entropic_force
arXiv:1104.4650
https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161
If it is spontaneous ... it is an entropic event .( Isn't "force" a pre GR concept?) The fallen object now sitting on the ground has achieved a lower level in its pursuit of ever slower time. Next, it could fall into a well... later, with Earth, into a black hole... Gravity is an entropic well.
In common language I would say that things tend to exist more where the rate of time is slower.
If we take the rate of time as "per second" or 1/T, a slower time rate means a larger denominator T and, consequently, a larger corresponding "space" in order to keep C constant. In other words, the object falls into larger space which is what entropy is all about. -
#2782 by aero on 15 Nov, 2016 23:59
-
@WarpTech:
While looking for Heim's prediction of the expanding universe I happened to bump into this:QuoteThere are some empirical predictions of Heim theory which can in principle be experimentally verified, but this has not been achieved to date. These include
Predictions for the masses of neutrinos, and
Predictions for the conversion of photons into the so-called "gravito-photons" resulting in a measurable force
There wasn't any more information on that page so linking it won't help, but I wonder if you have an idea of what "gravito-photons" might be?
Heim was brilliant and nearly blind. He worked his theory up in his head and dictated it to his wife. When I look at the math it is instant "cross-eyes" for me because the math is not fed with a spoon, rather with a ladle. I add this because folks shouldn't think he was stupid, far from it. -
#2783 by jmossman on 16 Nov, 2016 00:59
-
...
As far as I know none of the other theories can predict that static force's direction, other than Roger's. If you doubt Roger's theory predicts the small to big Thrust force, please review his theory presentation:
...
I demonstrated that my theory accurately predicted the force direction for the EW experiment at TM010 mode. It predicts the direction of the force is opposite the end with the highest dissipation, and that depends on the mode. This is why I think Shawyer's data is confusing. He has forces in both directions, but no data for which mode was excited in each test. If there were different modes excited, the forces could very well reverse for each test, scale vs rotary test rig.
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
...
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
...
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
That would be great, but the high Q is still absolutely necessary to boost the output force. The acceleration vector due to dissipation cannot dominate the system, or there won't be any counter mass. There needs to be enough counter mass to push against, to exert a significant thrust. In that regard, higher Q is better than higher acceleration, because it possesses more inertia. So I don't think the use of Magnetrons will work very well. It really needs a very narrow bandwidth source, to get that extremely high Q.
My idea to boost thrust is to test an impulse response, using a spark-gap. Dump a ton of energy into the antenna in one big "snap", and let the system ring like a bell... and repeat.
Todd
Perhaps revisiting our esteemed X_Ray's previous suggestion of using a pre-filter structure to help clean the output from a magnetron would be an appropriate add-on to Zellerium's latest proposal?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1524079#msg1524079Quote from: X_Ray link=topic=39772.msg1524079#msg1524079That's exactly the idea behind the prefilter structure. The output of the filter will be several dB lower than the noisy magnetron source alone but with smaller BW.
It works. It is standard technique.
http://tinyurl.com/z7b4lam
http://www.2comu.com/showroom_waveguide_filter.html
http://www.smtconsultancies.co.uk/products/rtcc/rtcc.php
-
#2784 by WarpTech on 16 Nov, 2016 02:31
-
@WarpTech:
While looking for Heim's prediction of the expanding universe I happened to bump into this:QuoteThere are some empirical predictions of Heim theory which can in principle be experimentally verified, but this has not been achieved to date. These include
Predictions for the masses of neutrinos, and
Predictions for the conversion of photons into the so-called "gravito-photons" resulting in a measurable force
There wasn't any more information on that page so linking it won't help, but I wonder if you have an idea of what "gravito-photons" might be?
Heim was brilliant and nearly blind. He worked his theory up in his head and dictated it to his wife. When I look at the math it is instant "cross-eyes" for me because the math is not fed with a spoon, rather with a ladle. I add this because folks shouldn't think he was stupid, far from it.
I have not read Heim's work, at least not in my recent memory, but what you've said so far sounds familiar.
In my model, if there is such a thing as a particle which couples gravity, it would be a pair of complex-conjugate photons, having average <0> electric field, a combined orbital angular momentum of 2*hbar, and possesses a small magnetic field. The particles are generated by the partial reflection of the outgoing photons of an EM field, back toward the source. In terms of waves, it is the superposition of the outgoing wave with its incoming complex conjugate reflection. I don't know if this holds water, it's just conjecture but it has the right effect on the vacuum to couple gravity.
i.e., Classically, at the source;
Increased magnetic flux is equivalent to u0 => K*u0
Decreased electric flux is equivalent to 1/e0 => 1/K*e0
Where u0 and e0 are vacuum permeability and permittivity, exactly what we would get from such a superposition, resulting in a speed of light which is c/K, where K is the refractive index.
Also, my friend Ricc came up with a pair of algebraic equations, whereby you input the expected mass and radius of a particle, such as the electron or the proton, and it will spit out the mass and radius of ALL the other particles, including neutrinos, as a function of an integer harmonic number. This model was based on a conjecture I made that; particles are sub-harmonics of some super-high vacuum cut-off frequency mode. This model derives the variable cut-off modes for each particle. I can't say that it is "physically" correct since there is no fundamental theory behind it, no geometry other than a spherical volume of energy, but it is a mathematical tool with which to make astoundingly accurate predictions.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjijarr7ds9j0pb/EGM%20Harmonic%20Representation%20of%20Particles.pdf?dl=0
Todd
-
#2785 by aero on 16 Nov, 2016 04:53
-
Very impressive Todd. Of course I didn't study it well enough to "Know," but it looks like I could if I wanted to take the time. That is a major step toward usability.
-
#2786 by Peter Lauwer on 16 Nov, 2016 09:41
-
...
As far as I know none of the other theories can predict that static force's direction, other than Roger's. If you doubt Roger's theory predicts the small to big Thrust force, please review his theory presentation:
...
I demonstrated that my theory accurately predicted the force direction for the EW experiment at TM010 mode. It predicts the direction of the force is opposite the end with the highest dissipation, and that depends on the mode. This is why I think Shawyer's data is confusing. He has forces in both directions, but no data for which mode was excited in each test. If there were different modes excited, the forces could very well reverse for each test, scale vs rotary test rig.
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
I don't have fancy facilities like a vacuum chamber, torsion pendulum etc and there's no way I could create a better setup than EW. But what about a high power test with a separated power source?
I could weld together a WR340 sized aluminum waveguide that is long enough to add in extra magnetrons at quarter wave spacing to scale up the power if the force is below resolution. Connect that to a circulator that I might be able to borrow from work, otherwise I'll have to build one. I could probably connect some threaded pipes to jerry rig a triple stub tuner before the horn which will probably be necessary.
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
Have everything mounted on a mg resolution digital scale and potentially incorporate a tuning rod in the prism if necessary. And of course seal everything really well so I don't microwave myself...
I'm thinking copper prism walls .02" thick with removable end plates to test the dissipation theory. Future iterations could use the same prism-end flange and a straight section to connect a movable short plunger to test dielectrics with the same mode.
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
Can very well be a usable setup. If you carefully study the forces between the horn antennas with a dummy load with more or less the same characteristics as the frustum. -
#2787 by Peter Lauwer on 16 Nov, 2016 13:30
-
Am considering purchase of Niobium sheet (1 mm) where I could sell of amounts not used to those who would be interested in purchasing various pieces at my cost only. (no charge for shipping etc.) If any NSF members are interested, please let me know as it would affect what I might purchase. FL
BTW 1 mm is just being thrown out there ....thinner or thicker might be preferred by most of y'all.
Sounds exotic, FL. But what are you going to use it for? A superconducting cavity?
Peter -
#2788 by zellerium on 16 Nov, 2016 14:05
-
...
As far as I know none of the other theories can predict that static force's direction, other than Roger's. If you doubt Roger's theory predicts the small to big Thrust force, please review his theory presentation:
...
I demonstrated that my theory accurately predicted the force direction for the EW experiment at TM010 mode. It predicts the direction of the force is opposite the end with the highest dissipation, and that depends on the mode. This is why I think Shawyer's data is confusing. He has forces in both directions, but no data for which mode was excited in each test. If there were different modes excited, the forces could very well reverse for each test, scale vs rotary test rig.
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
...
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
...
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
That would be great, but the high Q is still absolutely necessary to boost the output force. The acceleration vector due to dissipation cannot dominate the system, or there won't be any counter mass. There needs to be enough counter mass to push against, to exert a significant thrust. In that regard, higher Q is better than higher acceleration, because it possesses more inertia. So I don't think the use of Magnetrons will work very well. It really needs a very narrow bandwidth source, to get that extremely high Q.
My idea to boost thrust is to test an impulse response, using a spark-gap. Dump a ton of energy into the antenna in one big "snap", and let the system ring like a bell... and repeat.
Todd
Perhaps revisiting our esteemed X_Ray's previous suggestion of using a pre-filter structure to help clean the output from a magnetron would be an appropriate add-on to Zellerium's latest proposal?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1524079#msg1524079Quote from: X_Ray link=topic=39772.msg1524079#msg1524079That's exactly the idea behind the prefilter structure. The output of the filter will be several dB lower than the noisy magnetron source alone but with smaller BW.
It works. It is standard technique.
http://tinyurl.com/z7b4lam
http://www.2comu.com/showroom_waveguide_filter.html
http://www.smtconsultancies.co.uk/products/rtcc/rtcc.php
A prefilter might be a good idea. The cavity itself is a bandpass filter and if I'm coupling via waveguide then an iris opening would be the primary rejector of all frequencies outside the bandwidth. Thus to minimize heating onboard the test article you could use preliminary irises to filter before the sending horn.
However that might be bad idea given the cavity frequency drift expected with sheet metal might be on the order of the magnetron bandwidth (especially if I'm using kW's). I suppose if the prefilters were adjustable that would be ideal, but isn't that more or less what a three stub tuner would do?
And Peter, interesting idea! -
#2789 by Donosauro on 16 Nov, 2016 14:20
-
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
I don't have fancy facilities like a vacuum chamber, torsion pendulum etc and there's no way I could create a better setup than EW. But what about a high power test with a separated power source?
I could weld together a WR340 sized aluminum waveguide that is long enough to add in extra magnetrons at quarter wave spacing to scale up the power if the force is below resolution. Connect that to a circulator that I might be able to borrow from work, otherwise I'll have to build one. I could probably connect some threaded pipes to jerry rig a triple stub tuner before the horn which will probably be necessary.
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
Have everything mounted on a mg resolution digital scale and potentially incorporate a tuning rod in the prism if necessary. And of course seal everything really well so I don't microwave myself...
I'm thinking copper prism walls .02" thick with removable end plates to test the dissipation theory. Future iterations could use the same prism-end flange and a straight section to connect a movable short plunger to test dielectrics with the same mode.
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
If the scale is electronic, I would be concerned that leakage from high-power microwaves would throw off its readings. -
#2790 by dustinthewind on 16 Nov, 2016 14:35
-
Could a tunable "free electron laser" in the microwave range be a good input for these cavities?
mmm not sure but these may be considered klystrons in some way... or used in conjunction. The Free Electron Laser Klystron Amplifier Concept by E.L. Saldin a, E.A. Schneidmiller a, and M.V. Yurkov b
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klystron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laserQuote from: wikiIn 2012, scientists working on the LCLS overcame the seeding limitation for x-ray wavelengths by self-seeding the laser with its own beam after being filtered through a diamond monochromator. The resulting intensity and monochromaticity of the beam were unprecedented...
FEL technology is being evaluated by the US Navy as a candidate for an antiaircraft and anti-missile directed-energy weapon. The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility's FEL has demonstrated over 14 kW power output.
other sources "Microwave sources" @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave
-
#2791 by flux_capacitor on 16 Nov, 2016 15:13
-
Could a tunable "free electron laser" in the microwave range be a good input for these cavities?
mmm not sure but these may be considered klystrons in some way... or used in conjunction. The Free Electron Laser Klystron Amplifier Concept by E.L. Saldin a, E.A. Schneidmiller a, and M.V. Yurkov b
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klystron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laserQuote from: wikiIn 2012, scientists working on the LCLS overcame the seeding limitation for x-ray wavelengths by self-seeding the laser with its own beam after being filtered through a diamond monochromator. The resulting intensity and monochromaticity of the beam were unprecedented...
FEL technology is being evaluated by the US Navy as a candidate for an antiaircraft and anti-missile directed-energy weapon. The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility's FEL has demonstrated over 14 kW power output.
other sources "Microwave sources" @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave
Ah, klystrons… high power, narrow frequency and stable output, at once! My favorite
I don't understand why nobody plans to try klystrons (as well as TWTAs suggested by Shawyer) and only focus on high power but dirty magnetrons, or precise but low power solid-state power amps. -
#2792 by rfmwguy on 16 Nov, 2016 15:34
-
There are designs for a 100kW klystron floating about. Think the general consensus it to get repeatability at lower power levels before the "sledge hammer" of 100kW is considered. But yes, a TWTA or Klystron is the best way to go IMHO once it all becomes an accepted technology.Could a tunable "free electron laser" in the microwave range be a good input for these cavities?
mmm not sure but these may be considered klystrons in some way... or used in conjunction. The Free Electron Laser Klystron Amplifier Concept by E.L. Saldin a, E.A. Schneidmiller a, and M.V. Yurkov b
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klystron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laserQuote from: wikiIn 2012, scientists working on the LCLS overcame the seeding limitation for x-ray wavelengths by self-seeding the laser with its own beam after being filtered through a diamond monochromator. The resulting intensity and monochromaticity of the beam were unprecedented...
FEL technology is being evaluated by the US Navy as a candidate for an antiaircraft and anti-missile directed-energy weapon. The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility's FEL has demonstrated over 14 kW power output.
other sources "Microwave sources" @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave
Ah, klystrons… high power, narrow frequency and stable output, at once! My favorite
I don't understand why nobody plans to try klystrons (as well as TWTAs suggested by Shawyer) and only focus on high power but dirty magnetrons, or precise but low power solid-state power amps.
IIRC, there was someone in Canada I think was working on a 100kW experiment. They haven't posted in some time. Hope there wasn't an accident. You think magnetrons are dangerous, step in front of an unshielded Klystron once and your building days are over. -
#2793 by flux_capacitor on 16 Nov, 2016 16:05
-
There are designs for a 100kW klystron floating about. Think the general consensus it to get repeatability at lower power levels before the "sledge hammer" of 100kW is considered. But yes, a TWTA or Klystron is the best way to go IMHO once it all becomes an accepted technology.
Yes, like this project at Eagleworks:
But definitely won't happen there with their current lack of funding.IIRC, there was someone in Canada I think was working on a 100kW experiment. They haven't posted in some time. Hope there wasn't an accident. You think magnetrons are dangerous, step in front of an unshielded Klystron once and your building days are over.
Given the clues by Shawyer & TheTraveller about the repeatedly pulsed RF power with respect to the short "filling time" of the cavity and attempts to maintain uniform spherical wavefronts; the weird powerful transient "jerk" action investigated by SeeShells; and the various theories notably the one established by WarpTech, it appears someone should indeed experiment with clean pulsed high power, after the continuous blurry regime provided by CW magnetrons used up to now. But you're right it is dangerous. And characterization of the drive and spurious effects have to be completed first.
One should note however that a pulsed power source can reach a high peak power, but its average power could still be considerably lower.FEL technology is being evaluated by the US Navy as a candidate for an antiaircraft and anti-missile directed-energy weapon. The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility's FEL has demonstrated over 14 kW power output.
Mr. Sulu, divert 10% of the impulse EmDrive maser power into the main FEL beam, and blow up that Borg cube now!
-
#2794 by TheTraveller on 16 Nov, 2016 16:19
-
Yes, like this project at Eagleworks:
Despite some optimistic projections, it appears, from the EW vac results, that the force generation scales linear with Power (as per Roger's theory) and not at Power^2 or Power^4 as QV theory or Mach Effect theory predicts.
Which means if we want large N/kWrf numbers, using Shawyer Effect thruster designs, the pathway is cryo frustums with Qu of 10^9 or larger.
If QV theory, Mach Effect theory or some other theory can show experimental force generation data > linear (Qu * Power) please bring to on and share the data.
BTW it is not possible to keep the Rf energy freq envelope from a magnetron, to be inside a cryo frustum's bandwidth, so there is no way magnetron's have any value other than in low force generation demonstrations with low Qu non cryo frustums. -
#2795 by TheTraveller on 16 Nov, 2016 16:37
-
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
I don't have fancy facilities like a vacuum chamber, torsion pendulum etc and there's no way I could create a better setup than EW. But what about a high power test with a separated power source?
I could weld together a WR340 sized aluminum waveguide that is long enough to add in extra magnetrons at quarter wave spacing to scale up the power if the force is below resolution. Connect that to a circulator that I might be able to borrow from work, otherwise I'll have to build one. I could probably connect some threaded pipes to jerry rig a triple stub tuner before the horn which will probably be necessary.
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
Have everything mounted on a mg resolution digital scale and potentially incorporate a tuning rod in the prism if necessary. And of course seal everything really well so I don't microwave myself...
I'm thinking copper prism walls .02" thick with removable end plates to test the dissipation theory. Future iterations could use the same prism-end flange and a straight section to connect a movable short plunger to test dielectrics with the same mode.
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
Might be simpler and easier to replicate what I did.
Basically the same thing but much more KISS.
I measured 8mN (0.8g) of force small to big on an electronic scale with a gravity stacked frustum excited in TE013 mode with 95Wrf forward.
No centre of CG shift nor Lorentz forces. Ok maybe a thermal chimney effect but with power on being like 5 - 10 sec, nothing gets warm.
Swap the stack arrangement and the force reverses direction in reference to gravity but maintains a small to big direction.
-
#2796 by Bob012345 on 16 Nov, 2016 17:30
-
Yes, like this project at Eagleworks:
Despite some optimistic projections, it appears, from the EW vac results, that the force generation scales linear with Power (as per Roger's theory) and not at Power^2 or Power^4 as QV theory or Mach Effect theory predicts.
Which means if we want large N/kWrf numbers, using Shawyer Effect thruster designs, the pathway is cryo frustums with Qu of 10^9 or larger.
If QV theory, Mach Effect theory or some other theory can show experimental force generation data > linear (Qu * Power) please bring to on and share the data.
BTW it is not possible to keep the Rf energy freq envelope from a magnetron, to be inside a cryo frustum's bandwidth, so there is no way magnetron's have any value other than in low force generation demonstrations with low Qu non cryo frustums.
I wouldn't read too much into the NASA results. The design may be far from optimum. The true trends may be masked by other effects. -
#2797 by Bob012345 on 16 Nov, 2016 17:47
-
I would like to test Todd's theory, and here's how I propose to do so:
I don't have fancy facilities like a vacuum chamber, torsion pendulum etc and there's no way I could create a better setup than EW. But what about a high power test with a separated power source?
I could weld together a WR340 sized aluminum waveguide that is long enough to add in extra magnetrons at quarter wave spacing to scale up the power if the force is below resolution. Connect that to a circulator that I might be able to borrow from work, otherwise I'll have to build one. I could probably connect some threaded pipes to jerry rig a triple stub tuner before the horn which will probably be necessary.
After that a horn antenna will transfer power to the another horn that is connect to a tapered prism to excite the TE013. Sure the horns will be leaky and the waveguide bends will be lossy but thats what the extra maggies are for right?
Have everything mounted on a mg resolution digital scale and potentially incorporate a tuning rod in the prism if necessary. And of course seal everything really well so I don't microwave myself...
I'm thinking copper prism walls .02" thick with removable end plates to test the dissipation theory. Future iterations could use the same prism-end flange and a straight section to connect a movable short plunger to test dielectrics with the same mode.
Luckily I have access to HFSS so the design shouldn't take too long, except the circulator which I haven't given much thought to. But it sounds to me like more data is needed to advance any of these theories. Although carefully controlling every spurious effect would be ideal, my approach would attempt to boost the signal out of the noise via excessive power and hopefully using the right theoretical approach.
Might be simpler and easier to replicate what I did.
Basically the same thing but much more KISS.
I measured 8mN (0.8g) of force small to big on an electronic scale with a gravity stacked frustum excited in TE013 mode with 95Wrf forward.
No centre of CG shift nor Lorentz forces. Ok maybe a thermal chimney effect but with power on being like 5 - 10 sec, nothing gets warm.
Swap the stack arrangement and the force reverses direction in reference to gravity but maintains a small to big direction.
Will your device fit in a bell jar? You really wouldn't need that good of a vacuum to limit any possible thermal effects due to air. -
#2798 by Monomorphic on 16 Nov, 2016 18:28
-
Speaking of TE012, I have been working on a 5.8Ghz TE012 design with spherical endplates. E-field strength is higher than anything I have seen before. 3.6x107 kV/m whoa!
In the bottom image, the pink frustum is 5.8Ghz TE013, while the teal frustum is 5.8Ghz TE012. Shown to scale. All dims in cm.
-
#2799 by flux_capacitor on 16 Nov, 2016 18:46
-
Speaking of TE012, I have been working on a 5.8Ghz TE012 design with spherical endplates. E-field strength is higher than anything I have seen before. 3.6x107 kV/m whoa!
In the bottom image, the pink frustum is 5.8Ghz TE013, while the teal frustum is 5.8Ghz TE012. Shown to scale. All dims in cm.
Is that field strength close to anything real or is it an artifact? Seems enormous: 12,000 times air dielectric breakdown!
How does E-field is supposed to work on thrust force in the various ongoing theories?
