-
#1440 by X_RaY on 05 Jan, 2017 23:40
-
All calculations used the same mesh and solver conditions! Antenna position is optimized for impedance match (could be closer
why at the end plate now instead of the "small end" at all?
The small end is slightly above cutoff 151.15mm instead of 149.3mm...
At least the Q is almost equal and cannot be the reason for using the propagated cutoff rule.
What about comparing to the truncated frustum where the highest current density is "on" the SD end plate, not the side walls? That would be more compliant with Shawyer's advice. I think, if we're going to dissipate power asymmetrically, it should be on the end plate, not the side walls, so the flux that is escaping has the vector in the right direction.
I let the cone angle exact constant.
TT stated the currents should be minimized at the endplate.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1624685#msg1624685
Yea, I disagree. If the big end is leading when it's accelerating, then we want the power dissipation "on" the SD end plate.
I don't know if the shown design produces thrust at all. I don't know if one will show more thrust than the other design. The goal was to find out what happens to the Q-factor when one plate is below the cutoff rule.
Because this is comparing 2 frustums where "both" have the power dissipation in the side walls, and your result is that they are almost identical Q values. If we want to see a significant difference in Q, we need to compare two frustums that do NOT both have dissipation on the side walls. One would be on the side walls and the truncated one on the end plate. Think of the small end plate as a partially reflective mirror at one end of a MASER. This is the "output" end of the resonator, and we want the output to be as collimated as possible. I for one would like to know the difference in Q values. It might actually be higher in that configuration.
)
When I make the cavity even smaller i.e. shorter the Q will be lower.
Please note: There may be Q variations when even finer mesh will used.
-
#1441 by WarpTech on 06 Jan, 2017 00:17
-
All calculations used the same mesh and solver conditions! Antenna position is optimized for impedance match (could be closer )
When I make the cavity even smaller i.e. shorter the Q will be lower.
Please note: There may be Q variations when even finer mesh will used.
Thank you. So there's no significant variation in Q, that's good news because I think this configuration would be the better choice. At least it's not worse.
It could stand to be a little longer or a little wider (more angle), to get the frequency back down to 2.4GHz, but keeping the losses on the small end plate. According to my model, shorter with more angle is better than more length. -
#1442 by rfmwguy on 06 Jan, 2017 01:22
-
This is indeed my emdrive cavity dimensions. I removed all from wiki after a comment made on nsf by a former wiki curator whom did not appear to approve of me placing it there myself. IOW, I can take a hintDoes anyone have the dimensions and frequency for this build? Can they share them? FL
That's rfmwguy's NSF1701A. TE013 at ~2.83Ghz.
We know. What are the dimensions please? Dave's data is not in the wiki.
This is what was posted elsewhere and what I was given:
ds = 6.25"
ld = 10.0"
height = 8.175"
-
#1443 by WarpTech on 06 Jan, 2017 02:19
-
This is indeed my emdrive cavity dimensions. I removed all from wiki after a comment made on nsf by a former wiki curator whom did not appear to approve of me placing it there myself. IOW, I can take a hintDoes anyone have the dimensions and frequency for this build? Can they share them? FL
That's rfmwguy's NSF1701A. TE013 at ~2.83Ghz.
We know. What are the dimensions please? Dave's data is not in the wiki.
This is what was posted elsewhere and what I was given:
ds = 6.25"
ld = 10.0"
height = 8.175"
That's petty BS, considering the wiki was put there so we could all update it and keep track of the data. Sorry dude!
-
#1444 by rfmwguy on 06 Jan, 2017 02:34
-
No problem, simple politics. I'm glad to share when asked.
This is indeed my emdrive cavity dimensions. I removed all from wiki after a comment made on nsf by a former wiki curator whom did not appear to approve of me placing it there myself. IOW, I can take a hintDoes anyone have the dimensions and frequency for this build? Can they share them? FL
That's rfmwguy's NSF1701A. TE013 at ~2.83Ghz.
We know. What are the dimensions please? Dave's data is not in the wiki.
This is what was posted elsewhere and what I was given:
ds = 6.25"
ld = 10.0"
height = 8.175"
That's petty BS, considering the wiki was put there so we could all update it and keep track of the data. Sorry dude! -
#1445 by dustinthewind on 06 Jan, 2017 03:41
-
So the mass I've been looking for in order to locate a mass current for the gravitomagnetic equations...(so far effective mass of photons in resonators and waveguide, in materials, photons in a box contributing to overall mass of the box...etc) but one I hadn't considered is (to me the wiser choice now) is the center of mass of a counter-propagating two photon system.
Also apply this in the context of a partial standing wave, and the concept is definitely clicking.
To summarize, two counter-propagating waves of same phase and frequency (coherent), but of different amplitudes, give one partial stationary wave without nodes (open enveloppe with no destructive interference), resulting in an energy flow in the direction of the propagating wave of greater amplitude.
It is interesting to note the system can also be reduced in equations to one pure standing wave (with nodes and antinodes) + only one remaining propagating wave, explaining further why there is an energy flow in the direction of that propagating wave.
That being said, in a tapered cavity there may be many differences in the waves between the two opposite locations in the frustum, but locally at each material point in space within the frustum, either at big end or at small end, which quantity (frequency, phase, amplitude) would differ between the two counter-propagating waves?
PS: I changed the video in the quote of this message to the global english accent version, I understood this one perfectly as all people whose English is not their primarily language might.
This is an interesting quote here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentumQuoteIn other words, a photon does have relativistic mass proportional to its momentum.
...
And here we have it: photons have 'mass' inversely proportional to their wavelength! ...
Quote in image below or click link. Why I quote that is because it may be that even non-standing photons have relativistic mass. Take for instance 2 balls of matter and anti-matter that self annihilate into energy. Does that energy lose any mass? Would the gravitational pull just disappear? I'd say no, not at the instant of annihilation. So even the photons should have gravitational pull and an effective/relativistic mass by their intrinsic energy.
-
#1446 by WarpTech on 06 Jan, 2017 04:07
-
This is an interesting quote here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentumQuoteIn other words, a photon does have relativistic mass proportional to its momentum.
...
And here we have it: photons have 'mass' inversely proportional to their wavelength! ...
Quote in image below or click link. Why I quote that is because it may be that even non-standing photons have relativistic mass. Take for instance 2 balls of matter and anti-matter that self annihilate into energy. Does that energy lose any mass? Would the gravitational pull just disappear? I'd say no, not at the instant of annihilation. So even the photons should have gravitational pull and an effective/relativistic mass by their intrinsic energy.
What you're trying to say is already well known, since Sir. Arthur Eddington measured light bend, passing by our sun during an eclipse, in 1919.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington
The problem is "words". Everyone has a different interpretation of the words they use. If you say "relativistic mass", someone will argue that it's not because, it is "defined" to be gamma*m. Photons do not use gamma!
All of the equations shown are correct. They speak for themselves. The arguments happen when you use words instead of math. I find that even using just a few words, still causes arguments because everyone, (every damn one of us!) has their own personal interpretation of those words. We all speak a different language, because we have developed our own "slang" for well defined physics terms. I call it nit picking, but it's the biggest cause of disagreements there is, not properly defining terms or redefining terms in our own mind, that are already well defined for others. That is what is wrong with these "quotes".
In other words, we all need to learn what we're talking about in the language that professional physicists use, and even they are not consistent. Otherwise, just stick to the math equations. Though some, would even argue with those! A good example, read Dr. Rodal's Estes Park paper. He defines "everything" and repeats it, again at every usage, to make sure there is no misunderstanding. I don't have the patience to write like that, but I'm learning.
-
#1447 by WarpTech on 06 Jan, 2017 04:16
-
This is indeed my emdrive cavity dimensions. I removed all from wiki after a comment made on nsf by a former wiki curator whom did not appear to approve of me placing it there myself. IOW, I can take a hintDoes anyone have the dimensions and frequency for this build? Can they share them? FL
That's rfmwguy's NSF1701A. TE013 at ~2.83Ghz.
We know. What are the dimensions please? Dave's data is not in the wiki.
This is what was posted elsewhere and what I was given:
ds = 6.25"
ld = 10.0"
height = 8.175"
What are the dimensions of 1701B please? -
#1448 by FattyLumpkin on 06 Jan, 2017 04:26
-
This is Dave's at 2.45 GHz? TM
Thanks for that Monomorphic for doing the frequency sweep!!! I was wondering if a sweep was ever performed in the hopes of finding a decent TE mode. Looks beautiful!. What did you get for a Q FL BTW do you feel this is optimal, or did you play with the geometry a get a better "sim" (qualitative of course)?
-
#1449 by PotomacNeuron on 06 Jan, 2017 10:53
-
KISS thruster update
Seems my idea to use flat end plates and 8W Rf was not a good idea.
...
Why?
Flat end plates generate phase distortion in the dual travelling waves due to unequal path lengths. Something the sims don't show. Real world Q is then severly limited. Flat end plates may be OK for dealing with maggie freq splatter but for single freq excitment are not the best solution.
The best Q I have achieved with flat end plates is around 4-5k, based on forward power rise time. Which is the only way to measure Q, via cavity fill time.
Need a LOT more Q than that to generate the goal 2mN at 8W forward power.
Let me guess who made you believe that your original KISS could make 2mN then, and who made you believe your original KISS did not work now? It was Mr. Shawyer, right? Will you miss your end of January schedule to deliver the experiment?
I feel bad because of Mr. Shawyer. I feel like he does not want to see your KISS to progress. I feel like he will try again to postpone it. Why? Remember last time what I commented when I heard the news that he teamed with somebody to form a new company? I said I was disappointed that Mr. Shawyer aligned himself with those behindE-Cat orCannae. Bad!
Update: removed E-Cat after I learned that Rossi, who is behind E-Cat, was convicted. -
#1450 by Flyby on 06 Jan, 2017 10:53
-
So the mass I've been looking for in order to locate a mass current for the gravitomagnetic equations...(so far effective mass of photons in resonators and waveguide, in materials, photons in a box contributing to overall mass of the box...etc) but one I hadn't considered is (to me the wiser choice now) is the center of mass of a counter-propagating two photon system.
I recall seeing "marching" standing waves in the gif's Aero made with MEEP for Michelle.
Also apply this in the context of a partial standing wave, and the concept is definitely clicking.
I also noticed it in some of the animation Monomorphic made when he shifted through frequencies, just after the series he made on the random distortion of the internal surfaces.
Seems to me that these resonance patterns have a stability region that is able to handle quite some distortion, but when your frequency starts to shift it rapidly degrades into a more chaotic pattern.
I've always wondered if we are not simply looking for the wrong thing : maybe we do not need to have the stable resonance patterns, but rather to be on the edge of those resonances, where one can see those amplitudes start to move internally.
Maybe it is the repeatedly shifting of high intensity energy fields and their interaction with the side walls that causes the emdrive to move? Most likely, these marching standing wave patterns are the result of temporary conditions, cause by frequency drifting, so they are hard to sustain for long periods.
I know Dr Rodal has different a definition of a complex system, but I consider the bouncing of ever changing waves like some sort of spirograph. Any extremely small change in wave characteristics will/could have significant pattern changes.Yet, these changes only seem to occur only just before a stable patterns falls into a chaotic pattern.
That could explain why Shawyer focuses on short pulses, so that the pulsating effect is repeated over and over?
I see a similarity with spirographs, because like with spirographs, a small change in distance creates an unexpected difference in patterns, if repeated enough.
Sadly, it is a more intuitive approach then a scientific one. I realize that..
-
#1451 by sanman on 06 Jan, 2017 11:57
-
This is an interesting quote here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2229/if-photons-have-no-mass-how-can-they-have-momentumQuoteIn other words, a photon does have relativistic mass proportional to its momentum.
...
And here we have it: photons have 'mass' inversely proportional to their wavelength! ...
Quote in image below or click link. Why I quote that is because it may be that even non-standing photons have relativistic mass. Take for instance 2 balls of matter and anti-matter that self annihilate into energy. Does that energy lose any mass? Would the gravitational pull just disappear? I'd say no, not at the instant of annihilation. So even the photons should have gravitational pull and an effective/relativistic mass by their intrinsic energy.
What you're trying to say is already well known, since Sir. Arthur Eddington measured light bend, passing by our sun during an eclipse, in 1919.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington
The problem is "words". Everyone has a different interpretation of the words they use. If you say "relativistic mass", someone will argue that it's not because, it is "defined" to be gamma*m. Photons do not use gamma!
All of the equations shown are correct. They speak for themselves. The arguments happen when you use words instead of math. I find that even using just a few words, still causes arguments because everyone, (every damn one of us!) has their own personal interpretation of those words. We all speak a different language, because we have developed our own "slang" for well defined physics terms. I call it nit picking, but it's the biggest cause of disagreements there is, not properly defining terms or redefining terms in our own mind, that are already well defined for others. That is what is wrong with these "quotes".
In other words, we all need to learn what we're talking about in the language that professional physicists use, and even they are not consistent. Otherwise, just stick to the math equations. Though some, would even argue with those! A good example, read Dr. Rodal's Estes Park paper. He defines "everything" and repeats it, again at every usage, to make sure there is no misunderstanding. I don't have the patience to write like that, but I'm learning.
Perhaps it's a topic for a different thread of its own, but earlier in life I often ended up being misled by the "words".
An electron's "orbital" originally used to make me think of some kind of mini-sized planetary orbit around the nucleus, even when I was explicitly told not to think that.
We refer to light as a "wave" when a wave is a mere pattern - it's like calling a doorway a rectangle, or calling a wheel a circle. We casually talk about its "wave function" so often, obscuring what the function is defined with respect to.
The mathematics of physics is very precise, and yet the vocabulary of physics seems so sloppy by comparison - which only undermines the ability to place the mathematics into context.
-
#1452 by rfmwguy on 06 Jan, 2017 12:06
-
It's the same cavity. B designated the move to solid state
This is indeed my emdrive cavity dimensions. I removed all from wiki after a comment made on nsf by a former wiki curator whom did not appear to approve of me placing it there myself. IOW, I can take a hintDoes anyone have the dimensions and frequency for this build? Can they share them? FL
That's rfmwguy's NSF1701A. TE013 at ~2.83Ghz.
We know. What are the dimensions please? Dave's data is not in the wiki.
This is what was posted elsewhere and what I was given:
ds = 6.25"
ld = 10.0"
height = 8.175"
What are the dimensions of 1701B please? -
#1453 by Monomorphic on 06 Jan, 2017 12:13
-
Again, at the moment I don't believe in this Q values based on calculations with HOBF. I get freaky inconclusive results when using it.
EDIT
This is the same frustum as used for the Q compare but using HOBF and fine mesh. Instead of natural possible QL~36000, i get 207000 loaded Q!
I will rerun it without higher-order basis functions (HOBFs) and with mesh set to fine: 13,346 metallic triangles
Without higher-order basis functions (HOBF), Q for the spherical end-plate geometry came in at 72,531. However, the smith chart is showing under-coupled now, which is probably more accurate since i maxed out the resolution of the mesh. I will need to adjust the antenna some to get correct impedance.
-
#1454 by Peter Lauwer on 06 Jan, 2017 12:18
-
KISS thruster update
Seems my idea to use flat end plates and 8W Rf was not a good idea.
...
Why?
Flat end plates generate phase distortion in the dual travelling waves due to unequal path lengths. Something the sims don't show. Real world Q is then severly limited. Flat end plates may be OK for dealing with maggie freq splatter but for single freq excitment are not the best solution.
The best Q I have achieved with flat end plates is around 4-5k, based on forward power rise time. Which is the only way to measure Q, via cavity fill time.
Need a LOT more Q than that to generate the goal 2mN at 8W forward power.
Let me guess who made you believe that your original KISS could make 2mN then, and who made you believe your original KISS did not work now? It was Mr. Shawyer, right? Will you miss your end of January schedule to deliver the experiment?
I feel bad because of Mr. Shawyer. I feel like he does not want to see your KISS to progress. I feel like he will try again to postpone it. Why? Remember last time what I commented when I heard the news that he teamed with somebody to form a new company? I said I was disappointed that Mr. Shawyer aligned himself with those behind E-Cat or Cannae. Bad!
Yes, those kind of things, that's what I meant in 'And the 'Masters', the inventors, often had such habits, throwing breadcrumbs at their disciples. There often is a pattern..'
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1625885#msg1625885
-
#1455 by TheTraveller on 06 Jan, 2017 12:23
-
KISS thruster update
Seems my idea to use flat end plates and 8W Rf was not a good idea.
...
Why?
Flat end plates generate phase distortion in the dual travelling waves due to unequal path lengths. Something the sims don't show. Real world Q is then severly limited. Flat end plates may be OK for dealing with maggie freq splatter but for single freq excitment are not the best solution.
The best Q I have achieved with flat end plates is around 4-5k, based on forward power rise time. Which is the only way to measure Q, via cavity fill time.
Need a LOT more Q than that to generate the goal 2mN at 8W forward power.
Let me guess who made you believe that your original KISS could make 2mN then, and who made you believe your original KISS did not work now? It was Mr. Shawyer, right? Will you miss your end of January schedule to deliver the experiment?
I feel bad because of Mr. Shawyer. I feel like he does not want to see your KISS to progress. I feel like he will try again to postpone it. Why? Remember last time what I commented when I heard the news that he teamed with somebody to form a new company? I said I was disappointed that Mr. Shawyer aligned himself with those behind E-Cat or Cannae. Bad!
As far as I know Gilo Cardozo, Roger's JV partner, has nothing to do with E-Cat or Cannae. How did you make that connection? Do you have information to support that statement?
The 2mN with 8W Rf was MY calculation based on MY spreadsheet, the Df for the geometry and the thruster build achieving 75% of the theoretical Q. Roger never provided any data or estimation for the KISS thruster. The EmDrive design spreadsheet with the KISS thruster data is attached.
It was my mistake to think I could get the Q necessary to achieve 2mN with 8W Rf and use a simple to make flat plate frustum. This is R&D and timing gets messed up.
The KISS thruster project now needs spherical end plates, which I don't expect any DIY builder to replicate. Also means I will need to supply the thrusters and in probably some volume, necessitating an external manufacturer. Also means I need to develope, write and debug the code in the Arduino lowest reflected power freq tracker.
So yes all the above means there will be a delay in releasing the rotary test video. Not by any action of Roger or other party. Because of my error and the inclusion of the freq tracker in the kit.
-
#1456 by sanman on 06 Jan, 2017 13:05
-
You know, you don't even need a Kickstarter - why not just get a Patreon account to accept donations to fund EMdrive experiments.
https://www.patreon.com
Given how widely the EMdrive concept has been publicized, there's a sizeable fraction of the internet who've heard about it. At least then you could afford better equipment, etc to work with.
At the very least, you could pay for some Cloud compute time (AWS or whatever) to calculate from as fine a mesh as you'd like. -
#1457 by RERT on 06 Jan, 2017 13:53
-
Let me guess who made you believe that your original KISS could make 2mN then, and who made you believe your original KISS did not work now? It was Mr. Shawyer, right? Will you miss your end of January schedule to deliver the experiment?
I feel bad because of Mr. Shawyer. I feel like he does not want to see your KISS to progress. I feel like he will try again to postpone it. Why? Remember last time what I commented when I heard the news that he teamed with somebody to form a new company? I said I was disappointed that Mr. Shawyer aligned himself with those behind E-Cat or Cannae. Bad!
As far as I know Gilo Cardozo, Roger's JV partner, has nothing to do with E-Cat or Cannae. How did you make that connection? Do you have information to support that statement?
(snip..)
I for one think Rossi of ECat fame is a crook, and may have said so here before.
Therefore associating Shawyer with the ECat with no evidence could be seen as a smear tactic.
If you have evidence that Shawyer is associated with Rossi, you should share it. Otherwise, please don't make such associations. I see that you are trying to speak about broad patterns of behaviour, but association with Rossi is just too serious to be acceptable on such a flimsy basis.
Also, I have no idea why you are negative about Cannae. If it is simply that they are trying to make money, that is understood and expected. If it is anything else, could you summarize? -
#1458 by RERT on 06 Jan, 2017 14:06
-
Quote
Revaluation of Mbelek and Lachièze-Rey scalar tensor theory of gravitation to explain the measured forces in asymmetric resonant cavities.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.00454
Thanks for this post from Demovsky earlier. Having skimmed the paper, it seems like Minnoti has fixed what was perhaps the main apparent problem with his earlier work, that his theory produced physically implausible effects due to the Earth's gravitational field. He also manages to fight all the way from unified gravitation/Em scalar tensor theory to about 1 mN/kW in a resonating frustrum. So we seem to have a reasonable if non-standard physical theory which generates the right kind of engineering numbers.
Other than noting that the disappearance of the unwanted effects seems a little convenient, I'm not able to comment on the guts of the paper. Does anyone out there have a view? What are the drawbacks of scalar-tensor theory compared to straight GR?
-
#1459 by TheTraveller on 06 Jan, 2017 14:21
-
KISS thruster update:
New spherical end plate KISS thruster dimensions:
BD: 0.300m
BR: 0.500m
SD: 0.150m
SR: 0.250m
Ln: 0.250m
Vertex 0.5m
Q: 71k
Df: 0.839
Force at 8W: 2.4mN using 75% of Q value
Freq: 2.450GHz
The KISS thrusters will be:
spun
light machine to bring to specs
interior electropolished and oxidation protected
)
Thanks for that Monomorphic for doing the frequency sweep!!! I was wondering if a sweep was ever performed in the hopes of finding a decent TE mode. Looks beautiful!. What did you get for a Q FL BTW do you feel this is optimal, or did you play with the geometry a get a better "sim" (qualitative of course)?