-
#2320
by
meberbs
on 06 Feb, 2017 04:18
-
To my knowledge, Boeing has never stated the Flight Thruster did not meet the contracted performance. Roger has clearly stated it did.
As has been pointed out more than once, they also never said that the contract involved a performance specification. Meeting the contract could simply be providing a copper frustum with an RF input port.
-
#2321
by
RERT
on 06 Feb, 2017 08:40
-
It's deeply dissatisfying, but we can't contradict a claim that a program has 'gone black' with statements from the public domain. And unless someone wants to lose their job - ?go to jail? - by posting internal knowledge about a black program, we won't confirm it either.
There is good reason to believe that if the EMdrive had been found to work, development might be very tightly held. Similarly Shawyer can conveniently cover an absence of development with this story. People's beliefs about the EMdrive are unlikely to be caused to change by discussing this.
It can be fun to speculate, but honestly, I think it will save a lot of time to just 'park' this idea. I'm very much looking forward to data from Jamie's experiments. Not to say on the edge of my seat.....
-
#2322
by
Chrochne
on 06 Feb, 2017 12:00
-
I am more interested in this statement from the article
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/flights-of-fancy/"He declined to give details about the work with Gilo, due to ‘commercial and government imposed restrictions.’ However, Shawyer does confirm he is working on a superconducting EmDrive thruster. A 2014 published timetable of his estimated that, by 2016, he would have a 3kW thruster producing 3kN of thrust. He declined to confirm if he and Gilo has achieved that, saying that he is unable to talk about, ‘current test data’."
You can imagine a lot under that comment but 3kN sounds really nice.
I keep my fingers crossed for him
-
#2323
by
Rodal
on 06 Feb, 2017 12:53
-
I am more interested in this statement from the article
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/flights-of-fancy/
"He declined to give details about the work with Gilo, due to ‘commercial and government imposed restrictions.’ However, Shawyer does confirm he is working on a superconducting EmDrive thruster. A 2014 published timetable of his estimated that, by 2016, he would have a 3kW thruster producing 3kN of thrust. He declined to confirm if he and Gilo has achieved that, saying that he is unable to talk about, ‘current test data’."
You can imagine a lot under that comment but 3kN sounds really nice.
I keep my fingers crossed for him
To put this in context, Shawyer claimed a maximum of 0.174 Newtons for his Flight Thruster (destined towards Boeing).
The estimated 3000 Newtons thruster would have 17,240 times greater thrust than the maximum thrust that he claims he delivered to Boeing.
Given that the 0.174 Newtons maximum force he claimed he delivered to Boeing is not confirmed by Boeing, that Boeing says that they terminated their consulting contract with Shawyer and they are no longer pursuing the EM Drive, can we believe that Shawyer will deliver 17,240 greater thrust any time soon?
If he was targeting 3000 Newtons by 2016 (which is now past), why not deliver now a force of at least a few Newtons, that can be demonstrated and measured by the Royal Aeronautical Society and other independent observers, to re-establish his reputation ? Why continue to promise flying cars while simultaneously claiming " commercial and government imposed restrictions" restricting his ability to demonstrate the EM Drive?
-
#2324
by
rfmwguy
on 06 Feb, 2017 13:27
-
I am more interested in this statement from the article
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/flights-of-fancy/
"He declined to give details about the work with Gilo, due to ‘commercial and government imposed restrictions.’ However, Shawyer does confirm he is working on a superconducting EmDrive thruster. A 2014 published timetable of his estimated that, by 2016, he would have a 3kW thruster producing 3kN of thrust. He declined to confirm if he and Gilo has achieved that, saying that he is unable to talk about, ‘current test data’."
You can imagine a lot under that comment but 3kN sounds really nice.
I keep my fingers crossed for him
I don't know shawyer personally, although he has been encouraging to all DIY types. That being said, his high thrust claims are not helping the emdrive community IMHO. If he cannot say what he is doing, its best not to throw out such a high claim. It smacks of showmanship which none of us in the design, build and test world really need. We must avoid grandstanding and egos.
The highest demonstrated claim of thrust is 18.4 mN, which was mine in June of 2016, and that was not repeatable for reasons I've mentioned before. If someone has more than that, video, data, report...some sort of evidence needs to be made public. From my perspective, Star-Drive's design is the early gold standard...repeatable at 1.2 mN. While not the highest reported, it is by far the most thoroughly documented test to date.
I, too, am looking forward to monomorphic's testing. I mailed out his preamp today and he should have it on wednesday or thursday. I would encourage him to strive for repeatability of a measured thrust as the primary goal. I had high thrust with mine, but no frequency control which lead to magnetron burnout with a much higher Q cavity than I used before. Jamie does not have this issue. Anyway, thats just my stream of consciousness...back to the shadows.
-
#2325
by
flux_capacitor
on 06 Feb, 2017 13:54
-
To my knowledge, Boeing has never stated the Flight Thruster did not meet the contracted performance. Roger has clearly stated it did.
As has been pointed out more than once, they also never said that the contract involved a performance specification. Meeting the contract could simply be providing a copper frustum with an RF input port.
Phil, one thing remains unclear at all in this Boeing-SPR story (well, many things, but this one is a central point):
- Did SPR built the Flight Thruster, tested it beforehand
then shipped the physical unit to Boeing for testing?
Or- Did SPR built the Flight Thruster, tested it beforehand
then provided the complete data so Boeing can built a replicated unit themselves?
Can you ask Roger Shawyer if he can answer this very simple question? There are conflicting versions. If Boeing had only the data and not the physical SPR unit, maybe they built it wrong so they couldn't replicate the original unit's properties.
-
#2326
by
tchernik
on 06 Feb, 2017 14:00
-
Agree. Unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary (e.g. a video of flying article), any talk about kN thrusters is premature and even harmful to the credibility of the Emdrive.
Personally, I'd prefer any such talk remains minimal and mostly out of the ongoing discussion, because encouraging it only results in lengthy bouts of speculation and conspiracy theories, instead of the very concrete and productive discussion of data and results.
-
#2327
by
rfmwguy
on 06 Feb, 2017 14:23
-
Agree. Unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary (e.g. a video of flying article), any talk about kN thrusters is premature and even harmful to the credibility of the Emdrive.
Personally, I'd prefer any such talk remains minimal and mostly out of the ongoing discussion, because encouraging it only results in lengthy bouts of speculation and conspiracy theories, instead of the very concrete and productive discussion of data and results.
I'd vote for that as well. Anyone unwilling to provide evidence of claims should not post or be part of the discussion. I'm sure Roger is a good guy, but sorry...no evidence...no mention.
-
#2328
by
Star-Drive
on 06 Feb, 2017 14:28
-
I am more interested in this statement from the article
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/flights-of-fancy/
"He declined to give details about the work with Gilo, due to ‘commercial and government imposed restrictions.’ However, Shawyer does confirm he is working on a superconducting EmDrive thruster. A 2014 published timetable of his estimated that, by 2016, he would have a 3kW thruster producing 3kN of thrust. He declined to confirm if he and Gilo has achieved that, saying that he is unable to talk about, ‘current test data’."
You can imagine a lot under that comment but 3kN sounds really nice.
I keep my fingers crossed for him
I don't know shawyer personally, although he has been encouraging to all DIY types. That being said, his high thrust claims are not helping the emdrive community IMHO. If he cannot say what he is doing, its best not to throw out such a high claim. It smacks of showmanship which none of us in the design, build and test world really need. We must avoid grandstanding and egos.
The highest demonstrated claim of thrust is 18.4 mN, which was mine in June of 2016, and that was not repeatable for reasons I've mentioned before. If someone has more than that, video, data, report...some sort of evidence needs to be made public. From my perspective, Star-Drive's design is the early gold standard...repeatable at 1.2 mN. While not the highest reported, it is by far the most thoroughly documented test to date.
I, too, am looking forward to monomorphic's testing. I mailed out his preamp today and he should have it on wednesday or thursday. I would encourage him to strive for repeatability of a measured thrust as the primary goal. I had high thrust with mine, but no frequency control which lead to magnetron burnout with a much higher Q cavity than I used before. Jamie does not have this issue. Anyway, thats just my stream of consciousness...back to the shadows.
Dave:
"...Star-Drive's design is the early gold standard...repeatable at 1.2 mN."
I wish! The Eagleworks (
EW) lab's TM212 copper frustum test results
in-vacuum was
~1.2 mN/kW-RF or around a repeatable 80-to-100 micro-Newton (uN) thrust signature. As soon as my home workshop is completed in 6-to-8 weeks, dependent on the weather here in Friendswood, I hope to be able to demonstrate
at least an order of magnitude increase in the EW frustum thruster's efficiency or around ~12 milli-Newton (mN) per kW-RF using the tricks we have learned here at NSF.com needed to optimize the generated E-field levels in the frustum. I estimate that after my new lab is built, it will take me at least 6 months of lab setup, equipment calibration, test article fabrication time and then thrust testing to get new results, so Jamie, Shell, Dave or others may well be miles ahead of me before I can once again contribute to this effort.
Best, Paul M.
-
#2329
by
Rodal
on 06 Feb, 2017 14:46
-
...
Dave:
"...Star-Drive's design is the early gold standard...repeatable at 1.2 mN."
I wish! The Eagleworks (EW) lab's TM212 copper frustum test results in-vacuum was ~1.2 mN/kW-RF or around a repeatable 80-to-100 micro-Newton (uN) thrust signature. As soon as my home workshop is completed in 6-to-8 weeks, dependent on the weather here in Friendswood, I hope to be able to demonstrate at least an order of magnitude increase in the EW frustum thruster's efficiency or around ~12 milli-Newton (mN) per kW-RF using the tricks we have learned here at NSF.com needed to optimize the generated E-field levels in the frustum. I estimate that after my new lab is built, it will take me at least 6 months of lab setup, equipment calibration, test article fabrication time and then thrust testing to get new results, so Jamie, Shell, Dave or others may well be miles ahead of me before I can once again contribute to this effort.
Best, Paul M.
Paul, in your new Laboratory, are you
initially going to focus on the microwave resonant truncated cone EM Drive design pioneered by Shawyer?
Have you abandoned development plans of your Mach-Lorentz thruster (*) and do you think now that the EM Drive design is superior to your Mach-Lorentz thruster ?
Propellant-less
Thruster concept Frequency range of operation Inventor
EM Drive GHz Shawyer
Cannae GHz FettaMach-Lorentz MHz MarchMEGA (MET) kHz Woodward
Thanks for any update
(*) March, Paul (February 2004). "Woodward Effect Experimental Verifications". AIP Conference Proceedings. Space Technology and Applications International Forum-STAIFF 2004, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 699. American Institute of Physics. pp. 1138–1145.
Paper direct download link (pdf):
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31119.0;attach=496011Paul March and Andrew Palfreyman, "The Woodward Effect: Math Modeling and Continued Experimental Verifications at 2 to 4 MHz"
-
#2330
by
X_RaY
on 06 Feb, 2017 15:06
-
Hello and welcome,
if you really focus in a TE01p mode shape the waveguide should be rotated by 90 degree. A slot / iris is recommended for impedance matching.
Thank you for your answer! I've fixed waveguide rotation - please see draft attached - is it correct? If so, it would be a problem with waveguide location, because long side of it is 86.36 mm, so the center is 43.18 mm from the edge of waveguide. But guide (btw, is it axial distance or side distance) wavelength/4=36.56 mm, so it will cross the edge of big end plate. Can I move it up? How much? another 1/4 GWL?
May I ask you to advise me on how can I find/calculate properties of iris?
Based on your frustum dimensions it seens you like to use TE013. The "3" stands for the number of half wavelengths in axial direction (when using cylindrical coordinates). You can couple your waveguide into the middle section as well.
Its hard to give a good answer to your second question.
- It is possible to use a stub tuner in addition or even instead of a iris. This is the most easy way
However you will need a VNA.
There are a few possible ways to design a WG-iris.
- One is to simulate the problem using a finite element analysis (FEA) program.
-The other is to build the frustum and measure the resonant frequency, if the frequency is as expected, measure the impedance Z at the resonant frequency with a vector network analizer(VNA). Then substract the calculated phase-shift caused by your waveguide length to get Z'. The point is to know this value. i.e. the basic impedance (for this single frequency) at the plane where the iris will be placed, to calculate the additional circuit elements. Then the needed values to get impedance match can be estimated using
http://www.fritz.dellsperger.net/smith.htmlfor example.
If you know which capacitance and inductance is needed the to match the Z50Ω +j0Ω point in the smith diagram (the values can be read from the smith program) the dimensions of the iris can be calculated. The needed formulas are available via internet and in many textbooks.
https://cds.cern.ch/record/254974/files/CM-P00064510.pdfhttp://www.intechopen.com/books/wave-propagation-theories-and-applications/wave-iterative-method-for-electromagnetic-simulationUsing my own spread sheet I get a little lower target frequency for TE013 (2,372GHz). If you schedule to use a frequency tunable µW- source this isn't a problem. When using a solid single frequency source further (3D!) calculations are needed or maybe a frequency tunable cavity.
-
#2331
by
Star-Drive
on 06 Feb, 2017 18:41
-
...
Dave:
"...Star-Drive's design is the early gold standard...repeatable at 1.2 mN."
I wish! The Eagleworks (EW) lab's TM212 copper frustum test results in-vacuum was ~1.2 mN/kW-RF or around a repeatable 80-to-100 micro-Newton (uN) thrust signature. As soon as my home workshop is completed in 6-to-8 weeks, dependent on the weather here in Friendswood, I hope to be able to demonstrate at least an order of magnitude increase in the EW frustum thruster's efficiency or around ~12 milli-Newton (mN) per kW-RF using the tricks we have learned here at NSF.com needed to optimize the generated E-field levels in the frustum. I estimate that after my new lab is built, it will take me at least 6 months of lab setup, equipment calibration, test article fabrication time and then thrust testing to get new results, so Jamie, Shell, Dave or others may well be miles ahead of me before I can once again contribute to this effort.
Best, Paul M.
Paul, in your new Laboratory, are you initially going to focus on the microwave resonant truncated cone EM Drive design pioneered by Shawyer?
Have you abandoned development plans of your Mach-Lorentz thruster (*) and do you think now that the EM Drive design is superior to your Mach-Lorentz thruster ?
Propellant-less
Thruster concept Frequency range of operation Inventor
EM Drive GHz Shawyer
Cannae GHz Fetta
Mach-Lorentz MHz March
MEGA (MET) kHz Woodward
Thanks for any update
(*) March, Paul (February 2004). "Woodward Effect Experimental Verifications". AIP Conference Proceedings. Space Technology and Applications International Forum-STAIFF 2004, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 699. American Institute of Physics. pp. 1138–1145.
Paper direct download link (pdf):
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31119.0;attach=496011
Paul March and Andrew Palfreyman, "The Woodward Effect: Math Modeling and Continued Experimental Verifications at 2 to 4 MHz"
Jose':Oh dear, I had forgotten about that STAIF-2006 video that Tim Ventura made of me right after I gave my presentation. I think he should have just left it on the cutting room floor...
"Have you abandoned development plans of your Mach-Lorentz thruster (*) and do you think now that the EM Drive design is superior to your Mach-Lorentz thruster ?"
I still don't know which approach to this business will ultimately provide the best bang for the buck and watt in aerospace applications. So I plan to keep my options open including looking into how the German WWII Repulsine drive actually works, for I think its functioning relies on the QV and/or Mach-Effect at a minimum. However my initial emphasis for test articles will be to use MHz to GHz excitation frequencies with the prospects of generating hundreds to thousands of micro-Newtons (uN) or about where I left off in my STAIF-2006 paper test results. That includes using the high-K piezoelectric & electrostrictive based dielectric caps used in the X.X MHz Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) and the X.X GHz driven EMdrive frustum resonant cavities with or without the use of low-K dielectric inserts.
However if Dr. Woodward demonstrates in the interim that he and/or Dr. Fearn have figured out how to scaled up their current 1-to-5 uN thrust levels using their Mach-Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA) drives at 35kHz to at least the 100 uN-to-1.0 milli-Newton per thruster, I will include them in the testing matrix as well. Otherwise I will have to invest in building and commissioning of another low thrust torque pendulum that can measure down to the uN level, which will take at least a year to build and work out the bugs in same, for I have been there, done that and I would rather not do it again. I would much prefer to concentrate on the 0.10 milli-Newton and above thruster testing regime while using off the shelf load cells as my force and gravity sensors as I did in my STAIF-2006 paper.
BTW, find attached a slide with my current workshop build status as of last Friday.
Best, Paul M.
-
#2332
by
byterus
on 06 Feb, 2017 19:28
-
Hello and welcome,
if you really focus in a TE01p mode shape the waveguide should be rotated by 90 degree. A slot / iris is recommended for impedance matching.
Thank you for your answer! I've fixed waveguide rotation - please see draft attached - is it correct? If so, it would be a problem with waveguide location, because long side of it is 86.36 mm, so the center is 43.18 mm from the edge of waveguide. But guide (btw, is it axial distance or side distance) wavelength/4=36.56 mm, so it will cross the edge of big end plate. Can I move it up? How much? another 1/4 GWL?
May I ask you to advise me on how can I find/calculate properties of iris?
Based on your frustum dimensions it seens you like to use TE013. The "3" stands for the number of half wavelengths in axial direction (when using cylindrical coordinates). You can couple your waveguide into the middle section as well.
Its hard to give a good answer to your second question.
- It is possible to use a stub tuner in addition or even instead of a iris. This is the most easy way However you will need a VNA.
There are a few possible ways to design a WG-iris.
- One is to simulate the problem using a finite element analysis (FEA) program.
-The other is to build the frustum and measure the resonant frequency, if the frequency is as expected, measure the impedance Z at the resonant frequency with a vector network analizer(VNA). Then substract the calculated phase-shift caused by your waveguide length to get Z'. The point is to know this value. i.e. the basic impedance (for this single frequency) at the plane where the iris will be placed, to calculate the additional circuit elements. Then the needed values to get impedance match can be estimated using http://www.fritz.dellsperger.net/smith.html
for example.
If you know which capacitance and inductance is needed the to match the Z50Ω +j0Ω point in the smith diagram (the values can be read from the smith program) the dimensions of the iris can be calculated. The needed formulas are available via internet and in many textbooks.
https://cds.cern.ch/record/254974/files/CM-P00064510.pdf
http://www.intechopen.com/books/wave-propagation-theories-and-applications/wave-iterative-method-for-electromagnetic-simulation
Using my own spread sheet I get a little lower target frequency for TE013 (2,372GHz). If you schedule to use a frequency tunable µW- source this isn't a problem. When using a solid single frequency source further (3D!) calculations are needed or maybe a frequency tunable cavity.
X_RaY, thank you!
Two more questions, please!
1. "Middle section" - please take a look at picture attached. Is it what you mean?
2. Is 1/4 guide wavelength an
axial distance between big end plate and waveguide center (or antenna) or distance by side wall?
I think it will be easier for me to use tuner) But thank you for your detailed response!
Thank you!
-
#2333
by
X_RaY
on 06 Feb, 2017 19:46
-
Hello and welcome,
if you really focus in a TE01p mode shape the waveguide should be rotated by 90 degree. A slot / iris is recommended for impedance matching.
Thank you for your answer! I've fixed waveguide rotation - please see draft attached - is it correct? If so, it would be a problem with waveguide location, because long side of it is 86.36 mm, so the center is 43.18 mm from the edge of waveguide. But guide (btw, is it axial distance or side distance) wavelength/4=36.56 mm, so it will cross the edge of big end plate. Can I move it up? How much? another 1/4 GWL?
May I ask you to advise me on how can I find/calculate properties of iris?
Based on your frustum dimensions it seens you like to use TE013. The "3" stands for the number of half wavelengths in axial direction (when using cylindrical coordinates). You can couple your waveguide into the middle section as well.
Its hard to give a good answer to your second question.
- It is possible to use a stub tuner in addition or even instead of a iris. This is the most easy way However you will need a VNA.
There are a few possible ways to design a WG-iris.
- One is to simulate the problem using a finite element analysis (FEA) program.
-The other is to build the frustum and measure the resonant frequency, if the frequency is as expected, measure the impedance Z at the resonant frequency with a vector network analizer(VNA). Then substract the calculated phase-shift caused by your waveguide length to get Z'. The point is to know this value. i.e. the basic impedance (for this single frequency) at the plane where the iris will be placed, to calculate the additional circuit elements. Then the needed values to get impedance match can be estimated using http://www.fritz.dellsperger.net/smith.html
for example.
If you know which capacitance and inductance is needed the to match the Z50Ω +j0Ω point in the smith diagram (the values can be read from the smith program) the dimensions of the iris can be calculated. The needed formulas are available via internet and in many textbooks.
https://cds.cern.ch/record/254974/files/CM-P00064510.pdf
http://www.intechopen.com/books/wave-propagation-theories-and-applications/wave-iterative-method-for-electromagnetic-simulation
Using my own spread sheet I get a little lower target frequency for TE013 (2,372GHz). If you schedule to use a frequency tunable µW- source this isn't a problem. When using a solid single frequency source further (3D!) calculations are needed or maybe a frequency tunable cavity.
X_RaY, thank you!
Two more questions, please!
1. "Middle section" - please take a look at picture attached. Is it what you mean?
2. Is 1/4 guide wavelength an axial distance between big end plate and waveguide center (or antenna) or distance by side wall?
I think it will be easier for me to use tuner) But thank you for your detailed response!
Thank you!
For TE01
3 there are actually
3 half wavelength in this dierction. Please take a look to my avatar picture, it shows the TE013 field pattern. The smaller the diameter the greater is the streching of the wave, therefore the center of the middle lobe is not exact half the way between the endplates.
There is a side-thread that shows a lot of simulations and so on
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.0Please check this to get an ideas of some of the basics such as TE and TM modes (there are more but this are the relevant for a conductive cavity).
Only 9 sides till now.
-
#2334
by
rfmwguy
on 06 Feb, 2017 21:07
-
Hello and welcome,
if you really focus in a TE01p mode shape the waveguide should be rotated by 90 degree. A slot / iris is recommended for impedance matching.
Thank you for your answer! I've fixed waveguide rotation - please see draft attached - is it correct? If so, it would be a problem with waveguide location, because long side of it is 86.36 mm, so the center is 43.18 mm from the edge of waveguide. But guide (btw, is it axial distance or side distance) wavelength/4=36.56 mm, so it will cross the edge of big end plate. Can I move it up? How much? another 1/4 GWL?
May I ask you to advise me on how can I find/calculate properties of iris?
Based on your frustum dimensions it seens you like to use TE013. The "3" stands for the number of half wavelengths in axial direction (when using cylindrical coordinates). You can couple your waveguide into the middle section as well.
Its hard to give a good answer to your second question.
- It is possible to use a stub tuner in addition or even instead of a iris. This is the most easy way However you will need a VNA.
There are a few possible ways to design a WG-iris.
- One is to simulate the problem using a finite element analysis (FEA) program.
-The other is to build the frustum and measure the resonant frequency, if the frequency is as expected, measure the impedance Z at the resonant frequency with a vector network analizer(VNA). Then substract the calculated phase-shift caused by your waveguide length to get Z'. The point is to know this value. i.e. the basic impedance (for this single frequency) at the plane where the iris will be placed, to calculate the additional circuit elements. Then the needed values to get impedance match can be estimated using http://www.fritz.dellsperger.net/smith.html
for example.
If you know which capacitance and inductance is needed the to match the Z50Ω +j0Ω point in the smith diagram (the values can be read from the smith program) the dimensions of the iris can be calculated. The needed formulas are available via internet and in many textbooks.
https://cds.cern.ch/record/254974/files/CM-P00064510.pdf
http://www.intechopen.com/books/wave-propagation-theories-and-applications/wave-iterative-method-for-electromagnetic-simulation
Using my own spread sheet I get a little lower target frequency for TE013 (2,372GHz). If you schedule to use a frequency tunable µW- source this isn't a problem. When using a solid single frequency source further (3D!) calculations are needed or maybe a frequency tunable cavity.
X_RaY, thank you!
Two more questions, please!
1. "Middle section" - please take a look at picture attached. Is it what you mean?
2. Is 1/4 guide wavelength an axial distance between big end plate and waveguide center (or antenna) or distance by side wall?
I think it will be easier for me to use tuner) But thank you for your detailed response!
Thank you!
For TE013 there are actually 3 half wavelength in this dierction. Please take a look to my avatar picture, it shows the TE013 field pattern. The smaller the diameter the greater is the streching of the wave, therefore the center of the middle lobe is not exact half the way between the endplates.
There is a side-thread that shows a lot of simulations and so on
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.0
Please check this to get an ideas of some of the basics such as TE and TM modes (there are more but this are the relevant for a conductive cavity).
Only 9 sides till now.
I suppose I can disclose why TM mode was so interesting to me when I designed 1701A. I had been focused quite a while on Magnetic field interactions. If you look at the TM propagation characteristics in the pic below, you'll see TM propagates with H/B fields "open" along the axial length of a waveguide or cavity. Use right-hand rule for rotational characteristics (virtual propeller if you will).
These fields are in alignment with the direction of force observed. Considering others have made TE resonant mode cavities and have observed force, it likely means my fixation on TM is not the only solution. However, I did achieve about 24.5mN/kW as a best effort. It will be interesting to see if TE mode can provide this or better.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78419/transverse-magnetic-tm-and-transverse-electric-te-modes
-
#2335
by
flux_capacitor
on 06 Feb, 2017 21:38
-
I plan to keep my options open including looking into how the German WWII Repulsine drive actually works, for I think its functioning relies on the QV and/or Mach-Effect at a minimum.
I thought Viktor Schauberger's work had been put to oblivion! Glad to see someone is interested nowadays at separating fact from fiction. So you think the Coanda effect from the airflow is not solely responsible for the lift of the Repulsine, interesting.
I have always wondered if Schauberger's particular vortex turbine could offer a power-to-weight ratio high enough to lift a Coanda disc like the one described in that old article (badly translated from French, but many pictures).
Sorry for that non-EM digression, but Paul triggered something
-
#2336
by
Star-Drive
on 06 Feb, 2017 23:10
-
I plan to keep my options open including looking into how the German WWII Repulsine drive actually works, for I think its functioning relies on the QV and/or Mach-Effect at a minimum.
I thought Viktor Schauberger's work had been put to oblivion! Glad to see someone is interested nowadays at separating fact from fiction. So you think the Coanda effect from the airflow is not solely responsible for the lift of the Repulsine, interesting.
I have always wondered if Schauberger's particular vortex turbine could offer a power-to-weight ratio high enough to lift a Coanda disc like the one described in that old article (badly translated from French, but many pictures).
Sorry for that non-EM digression, but Paul triggered something
Flux-Capacitor:
The Repulsine is just an aerodynamic compressor depending on conventional aerodynamic turbine compression effects that are turned 90 degrees by the Coanda effect at the engine's radial perimeter. It is, until it starts to ionize its output compressed air at around 20,000 RPM in a
cyclic manner. Then things get interesting because you have a
high density, oscillating electrical plasma that is accelerated through a 90 degree turn by the still acting Coanda effect, which could generate a force rectification process that is acting on the Mach-Effect like mass fluctuations created by the
oscillating electrical plasma. There is also possible higher dimensional effects that might be going on that are even more speculative in nature. This could readily explain the odd reports about this device's actions when it was spun fast enough to ionize it output air. Are these Repulsine effects in any way related to the EMdrive and the MEGA drive? I think they may be...
Best, Paul M.
-
#2337
by
demofsky
on 07 Feb, 2017 02:18
-
I plan to keep my options open including looking into how the German WWII Repulsine drive actually works, for I think its functioning relies on the QV and/or Mach-Effect at a minimum.
I thought Viktor Schauberger's work had been put to oblivion! Glad to see someone is interested nowadays at separating fact from fiction. So you think the Coanda effect from the airflow is not solely responsible for the lift of the Repulsine, interesting.
I have always wondered if Schauberger's particular vortex turbine could offer a power-to-weight ratio high enough to lift a Coanda disc like the one described in that old article (badly translated from French, but many pictures).
Sorry for that non-EM digression, but Paul triggered something
Flux-Capacitor:
The Repulsine is just an aerodynamic compressor depending on conventional aerodynamic turbine compression effects that are turned 90 degrees by the Coanda effect at the engine's radial perimeter. It is, until it starts to ionize its output compressed air at around 20,000 RPM in a cyclic manner. Then things get interesting because you have a high density, oscillating electrical plasma that is accelerated through a 90 degree turn by the still acting Coanda effect, which could generate a force rectification process that is acting on the Mach-Effect like mass fluctuations created by the oscillating electrical plasma. There is also possible higher dimensional effects that might be going on that are even more speculative in nature. This could readily explain the odd reports about this device's actions when it was spun fast enough to ionize it output air. Are these Repulsine effects in any way related to the EMdrive and the MEGA drive? I think they may be...
Best, Paul M.
Yes. For whatever it is worth, the key thing that struck me about Schauberger's work were the reported ionization effects that were alleged to occur - signalling that something very interesting could be going on.
-
#2338
by
WarpTech
on 07 Feb, 2017 02:19
-
...
BTW, find attached a slide with my current workshop build status as of last Friday.
Best, Paul M.
Did you put a copper ground ring around the foundation (or in the foundation) with ground rods every 10-ft?
Just curious. I go through this to install solar systems, to prevent a Ground Fault Potential Rise from propagating outside the equipment pad. It makes the entire area an equipotential ground.
-
#2339
by
Rodal
on 07 Feb, 2017 02:57
-
..
BTW, find attached a slide with my current workshop build status as of last Friday.
Best, Paul M.
Some suggestions:
"The Paul March Antigravitation Research Laboratory"
"Paul March's Space Propulsion Research Laboratory"
"Paul March's Breakthrough Propulsion Research Laboratory"
"Paul March's Advanced Propulsion Research Laboratory"
Goddard in his laboratory:
Tsiolkovsky in his laboratory:
However you will need a VNA.