-
#1940 by spupeng7 on 03 Oct, 2017 01:26
-
CORRECTION:
Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time. It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017
NIAC video:
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017/videos/163432557 starts at approx 48:00
Dr. Fearn's NIAC presentation is now up on YouTube:
Believe Prof Tajmar has presented his paper at IAC 2017 on his MEGA drive replication.
Trust it will surface some time soon.
https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38595/summary/
Simplified theory as attached:
Apologies for non-physicist questions but:
I was wondering why she said the spaceship gets up to about .4c as that is about the limit it could survive. Is that because of space dust or something?
Also I read somewhere that as a spacecraft approaches c, the power needed to go faster tends to infinity. Does that apply here to?
Definitely some head in the clouds thinking, and I can understand that, especially when you're presenting to a NASA crowd. It's not ultimately useful to expend so much time and resources planning lofty space missions, when the basics haven't been covered yet. The ugly reality is that we're dealing with devices here that barely produce any thrust whatsoever, and you need a carefully calibrated balance combined with statistical analysis in order to even see the signal. At 20:43 to 20:54, Dr. Fearn acknowledges the importance of the damper, and begins talking about converting from kinetic and potential energy (and back and forth), which is describing conservative force fields. The issue I want to raise is that the damper represents a nonconservative element, meaning that if you integrate the work done around a closed loop you don't end up back at zero.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node59.html
I would recommend completely dropping all the Mach effects talk, which in my opinion is an even worse tar baby being used to explain the first tar baby....how is momentum and energy conserved? In physics, we want to be able to explain things and to understand things as simply and as accurately as possible. When you say that the device is coupling with the distant matter of the universe, and sprinkle some Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (which is not proven to be real) in for good measure, what is this saying? Does it have any meaning? Saying that it works because of Mach effects doesn't have any meaning. Where's the proof of these Mach effects? They seem like an ad-hoc means to explain away a very important problem, but now instead of there just being one problem (the conservation laws), now there's two.
Mulletron,
"Where's the proof of these Mach effects?" Where indeed, I promise you it keeps me awake nights. But to accept paradox and deny the new millenium's most interesting experimental results is not the answer either
-
#1941 by M.LeBel on 03 Oct, 2017 01:36
-
Got it! I got distracted by the bolding offered.
"Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem. Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field."
Dr Rodal's last line says it all. As I understood it;
" Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field" = no bootstrap principle, no propellantless principle.
Thanks, -
#1942 by Mulletron on 03 Oct, 2017 02:50
-
CORRECTION:
Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time. It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017
NIAC video:
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017/videos/163432557 starts at approx 48:00
Dr. Fearn's NIAC presentation is now up on YouTube:
Believe Prof Tajmar has presented his paper at IAC 2017 on his MEGA drive replication.
Trust it will surface some time soon.
https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38595/summary/
Simplified theory as attached:
Apologies for non-physicist questions but:
I was wondering why she said the spaceship gets up to about .4c as that is about the limit it could survive. Is that because of space dust or something?
Also I read somewhere that as a spacecraft approaches c, the power needed to go faster tends to infinity. Does that apply here to?
Definitely some head in the clouds thinking, and I can understand that, especially when you're presenting to a NASA crowd. It's not ultimately useful to expend so much time and resources planning lofty space missions, when the basics haven't been covered yet. The ugly reality is that we're dealing with devices here that barely produce any thrust whatsoever, and you need a carefully calibrated balance combined with statistical analysis in order to even see the signal. At 20:43 to 20:54, Dr. Fearn acknowledges the importance of the damper, and begins talking about converting from kinetic and potential energy (and back and forth), which is describing conservative force fields. The issue I want to raise is that the damper represents a nonconservative element, meaning that if you integrate the work done around a closed loop you don't end up back at zero.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node59.html
I would recommend completely dropping all the Mach effects talk, which in my opinion is an even worse tar baby being used to explain the first tar baby....how is momentum and energy conserved? In physics, we want to be able to explain things and to understand things as simply and as accurately as possible. When you say that the device is coupling with the distant matter of the universe, and sprinkle some Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (which is not proven to be real) in for good measure, what is this saying? Does it have any meaning? Saying that it works because of Mach effects doesn't have any meaning. Where's the proof of these Mach effects? They seem like an ad-hoc means to explain away a very important problem, but now instead of there just being one problem (the conservation laws), now there's two.
Mulletron,
"Where's the proof of these Mach effects?" Where indeed, I promise you it keeps me awake nights. But to accept paradox and deny the new millenium's most interesting experimental results is not the answer either
If I had an experiment, and my hypothesis was that x would happen, and x actually did happen, and I supposed that x was explained by y, it does not prove that y is true.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequent -
#1943 by sanman on 03 Oct, 2017 06:23
-
Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem. Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.
So if there's an external field involved here, what is it? (And please don't tell me it's a "field of dreams"
)
Is it the Quantum Foam (aka. Dynamic Vacuum) ? -
#1944 by ThinkerX on 03 Oct, 2017 07:36
-
Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem. Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.
So if there's an external field involved here, what is it? (And please don't tell me it's a "field of dreams" )
Is it the Quantum Foam (aka. Dynamic Vacuum) ?
That or gravity. Its a short list. -
#1945 by qraal on 03 Oct, 2017 10:24
-
Hi
You mean like this?
qraalCORRECTION:
Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time. It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017
NIAC video:
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017/videos/163432557 starts at approx 48:00
Dr. Fearn's NIAC presentation is now up on YouTube:
Believe Prof Tajmar has presented his paper at IAC 2017 on his MEGA drive replication.
Trust it will surface some time soon.
https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38595/summary/
Simplified theory as attached:
-
#1946 by flux_capacitor on 03 Oct, 2017 12:06
-
Hi
You mean like this?
qraal
Interesting, page 4:Quote from: Martin TajmarWe plan to build an EMDrive model similar to White et al. on our upgraded thrust balance as shown in Fig. 3. Our vacuum chamber is much larger allowing for better electromagnetic shielding. We plan to optimize the thermal design to limit any centre of gravity shifts due to thermal expansion. In addition, other geometries will be extensively tested as well.
Figure 3 attached. It is designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance.
-
#1947 by Monomorphic on 03 Oct, 2017 12:26
-
This is the laser displacement sensor Tajmar is going to use. 3 sensor axis with 1pm sensor resolution and 2nm repeatability. Much better than the Philtec sensor used by Woordward and Fearn. I would love to get my hands on one of these! I bet it costs $5,000 - $10,000.
http://www.attocube.com/attosensorics/ids-sensors/ids3010/
-
#1948 by flux_capacitor on 03 Oct, 2017 12:31
-
This is the laser displacement sensor Tajmar is going to use. 3 sensor axis with 1pm sensor resolution and 2nm repeatability. Much better than the Philtec sensor used by Woordward and Fearn. I would love to get my hands on one of these! I bet it costs $5,000 - $10,000.
http://www.attocube.com/attosensorics/ids-sensors/ids3010/
Good to know that. But $5,000 - $10,000: Tajmar received a boost in funding, or what? Previously he said his lab couldn't afford a tunable microwave source and had to resort to a commercial microwave oven magnetron
Indeed this time, the cavity in figure 3 in my previous post:
is clearly designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance:
Tajmar doesn't provide the dimensions of the future cavity yet. I wonder if it will have the exact same lengths as the Eagleworks cavity, or if it will be a similar frustum but with a different aspect ratio. In particular, I wonder:
- if this EmDrive will have flat end plates like the Eagleworks cavity, or spherically shaped ends like the previous TU Dresden cavity. Doesn't the CGI picture suggest flats end plates–?!
- if the small end will respect or not Shawyer's Df and more importantly his so-called "cutoff rule". Since flat ends would be a straight departure from Shawyer's guidelines (after all, the very poor design of the previous cavity after the collaboration with Shawyer may have turned off Tajmar from repeating what he now thinks was a mistake) he may completely drop Shawyer's advice and go for an IV&V of the Eagleworks cavity.
I would understand why Tajmar would do that, but at the same time the very small force produced by the Eagleworks design may be a concern. I'm sure TT will holler if it's the case
-
#1949 by Rodal on 03 Oct, 2017 13:39
-
In their previous report for << their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance>> they repeatedly thanked Shawyer for Shawyer's advice on building that previous cavity (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280576708_Direct_Thrust_Measurements_of_an_EM_Drive_and_Evaluation_of_Possible_Side-Effects).Hi
You mean like this?
qraal
Interesting, page 4:Quote from: Martin TajmarWe plan to build an EMDrive model similar to White et al. on our upgraded thrust balance as shown in Fig. 3. Our vacuum chamber is much larger allowing for better electromagnetic shielding. We plan to optimize the thermal design to limit any centre of gravity shifts due to thermal expansion. In addition, other geometries will be extensively tested as well.
Figure 3 attached. It is designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance.
In this new report for the design of << a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO>> they do not mention any advice from Shawyer, is that correct? -
#1950 by flux_capacitor on 03 Oct, 2017 13:47
-
In their previous report for << their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance>> they repeatedly thanked Shawyer for the advice on building that previous cavity. In this new report for the design of << a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO>> they do not mention any advice from Shawyer, is that correct?Hi
You mean like this?
qraal
Interesting, page 4:Quote from: Martin TajmarWe plan to build an EMDrive model similar to White et al. on our upgraded thrust balance as shown in Fig. 3. Our vacuum chamber is much larger allowing for better electromagnetic shielding. We plan to optimize the thermal design to limit any centre of gravity shifts due to thermal expansion. In addition, other geometries will be extensively tested as well.
Figure 3 attached. It is designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance.
Correct.
Although in this very recent document, Tajmar credits Shawyer for being the inventor of the EmDrive, and cites his papers in the references, as well as critiques of Shawyer's theory as being a closed system incompatible with known physical laws, and possible alternatives as an open system (with McCulloch's quantised inertia and Montillet's Mach effect). -
#1951 by Rodal on 03 Oct, 2017 13:52
-
...
So, it looks like they are now proceeding independently of Shawyer in designing the EM Drive test with << a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design>>.
Correct.
Although in this very recent document, Tajmar credits Shawyer for being the inventor of the EmDrive, and cites his papers in the references, as well as critiques of Shawyer's theory as being a closed system incompatible with known physical laws, and possible alternatives as an open system (with McCulloch's quantised inertia and Montillet's Mach effect).
Concerning your comment that <<Shawyer's theory as being a closed system incompatible with known physical laws>> they actually wrote in their paper:QuoteHe [Shawyer] believes that the radiation pressure is different at the small and large ends which results in a net thrust force [21]. This was highly criticized as not being compatible with electromagnetism and conservation laws [22]. Alternative theories have appeared [23],[24] including a variable mass approach as outlined above [25], however, the community remains highly sceptical on the theoretical grounds of this concept
It is interesting that among the references they cite to support the above statement is this article with a striking title, that I did not recall:
[22] Costella, J. P., “Why Shawyer’s ‘electromagnetic Relativity Drive’ Is a Fraud” Available: http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdf
[this link presently triggers "The requested resource () is not available." I could not find a trace of such an article by the author still being maintained, but I found an old copy in NSF threads: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1025555. I also found https://johncostella.wordpress.com/ "The EmDrive: the cold fusion of the 21st century?" apparently by the same author?]
which follows this one:
[21] Shawyer, R., “A Theory of Microwave Propulsion for Spacecraft” Available: https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf
and for alternative theories they cite:
[23] Grahn, P., Annila, A., and Kolehmainen, E., “On the Exhaust of Electromagnetic Drive,” AIP Advances, vol. 6, Jun. 2016, p. 65205. doi:10.1063/1.4953807
[24] McCulloch, M. E., “Testing Quantised Inertia on Emdrives with Dielectrics,” EPL (Europhysics Letters), vol. 118, May 2017, p. 34003. doi:10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003
[25] Montillet, J.-P., “Theory of the EM-Drive Based on Mach-Lorentz Theory,” Proceedings of the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop, H. Fearn and L. Williams, eds., Mojave: Space Studies Institute Press, 2017, pp. 111–126.
concluded with "however, the community remains highly sceptical on the theoretical grounds of this concept" -
#1952 by Mulletron on 03 Oct, 2017 15:59
-
Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem. Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.
So if there's an external field involved here, what is it? (And please don't tell me it's a "field of dreams" )
Is it the Quantum Foam (aka. Dynamic Vacuum) ?
That or gravity. Its a short list.
External force. Dissipative forces. -
#1953 by Peter Lauwer on 03 Oct, 2017 19:34
-
Frustum TE013 @ ~3.6 GHz
I have made my first frustum cavity. It is all handwork. Still have to make the coupling loop(s), so it may take a few weeks before I can measure the exact resonance frequencies. It is designed to have the TE013 at 3.55 GHz. Only the small end has a flange. Side wall and big endplate (flat) are from 0.5 mm copper, small endplate 1.0 mm, flange 2 mm. Dims: small diam 123 mm, big diam 204 mm, height 164 mm.
I'll keep you informed about my progress (but probably not so much time in the coming month).
Peter
-
#1954 by M.LeBel on 04 Oct, 2017 00:16
-
CORRECTION:
Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time. It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017
NIAC video:
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017/videos/163432557 starts at approx 48:00
Dr. Fearn's NIAC presentation is now up on YouTube:
Believe Prof Tajmar has presented his paper at IAC 2017 on his MEGA drive replication.
Trust it will surface some time soon.
https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38595/summary/
Simplified theory as attached:
Apologies for non-physicist questions but:
I was wondering why she said the spaceship gets up to about .4c as that is about the limit it could survive. Is that because of space dust or something?
Also I read somewhere that as a spacecraft approaches c, the power needed to go faster tends to infinity. Does that apply here to?
Definitely some head in the clouds thinking, and I can understand that, especially when you're presenting to a NASA crowd. It's not ultimately useful to expend so much time and resources planning lofty space missions, when the basics haven't been covered yet. The ugly reality is that we're dealing with devices here that barely produce any thrust whatsoever, and you need a carefully calibrated balance combined with statistical analysis in order to even see the signal. At 20:43 to 20:54, Dr. Fearn acknowledges the importance of the damper, and begins talking about converting from kinetic and potential energy (and back and forth), which is describing conservative force fields. The issue I want to raise is that the damper represents a nonconservative element, meaning that if you integrate the work done around a closed loop you don't end up back at zero.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node59.html
I would recommend completely dropping all the Mach effects talk, which in my opinion is an even worse tar baby being used to explain the first tar baby....how is momentum and energy conserved? In physics, we want to be able to explain things and to understand things as simply and as accurately as possible. When you say that the device is coupling with the distant matter of the universe, and sprinkle some Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (which is not proven to be real) in for good measure, what is this saying? Does it have any meaning? Saying that it works because of Mach effects doesn't have any meaning. Where's the proof of these Mach effects? They seem like an ad-hoc means to explain away a very important problem, but now instead of there just being one problem (the conservation laws), now there's two.
Mulletron,
"Where's the proof of these Mach effects?" Where indeed, I promise you it keeps me awake nights. But to accept paradox and deny the new millenium's most interesting experimental results is not the answer either
Mach effect
Imho - A particle exists in the vacuum by occupying a place that nothing else can. As such, it constitutes a single boundary for all vacuum wave functions around it. As a boundary, it receives continual momentum from all directions making the particle jiggle around, a sort of vacuum Brownian motion. This is why its position and momentum are not intrinsically definite, since its existence is inseparable from the vacuum and its fluctuations. When we accelerate the particle, the boundary function becomes asymmetric creating the force exposed by Casimir.
It seems to indicate that inertia, or the resistance to acceleration, is the Casimir force resulting from an asymmetric contact with the effect of the vacuum. This means that we accelerate with respect to the vacuum.
The Mach effect says that we accelerate with respect to the rest of the universe. It is true in a large sense, but in practice, it is more local. The local condition of the vacuum is in effect part of “the rest of the universe”, as not being at the same place, as already taken by the particle.
Now go and have a good night sleep -
#1955 by Stormbringer on 04 Oct, 2017 01:54
-
just curious- has anyone read the article yesterday or the day before about the collapse of the wave function being a real thing?
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Quantum_twisted_Loong_confirms_the_physical_reality_of_wavefunctions_999.html
it might be of interest since some theories involve the quantum angle.
-
#1956 by M.LeBel on 04 Oct, 2017 02:38
-
just curious- has anyone read the article yesterday or the day before about the collapse of the wave function being a real thing?
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Quantum_twisted_Loong_confirms_the_physical_reality_of_wavefunctions_999.html
it might be of interest since some theories involve the quantum angle.
.... Einstein's famous question states: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it?
Spacetime means no two points are at the same moment. As such, all the points making the Moon are away in time from each other. This means that there is an aggregate of matter across time orbiting the Earth that WE make up as an object being whole in one moment of perception. Although all the points of the Moon are away in time from each other, we perceive or conceive it as being whole in one moment.
So, the answer is YES! We make up the Moon object/package by perceptual integration, like photography.
(Caveat: the aggregate does exist, but not the whole object "Moon". A normally non-receivable question since it addresses "existence" and "perception", two different truth systems)
Next!
The wave collapse happens only as full double constraints are removed and infinities in the probability distribution are re-established. It does not apply to single boundary removal i.e. photon absorption. In that case, it takes the full period T to transfer the quantum of action.
-
#1957 by TheTraveller on 04 Oct, 2017 02:48
-
Frustum TE013 @ ~3.6 GHz
I have made my first frustum cavity. It is all handwork. Still have to make the coupling loop(s), so it may take a few weeks before I can measure the exact resonance frequencies. It is designed to have the TE013 at 3.55 GHz. Only the small end has a flange. Side wall and big endplate (flat) are from 0.5 mm copper, small endplate 1.0 mm, flange 2 mm. Dims: small diam 123 mm, big diam 204 mm, height 164 mm.
I'll keep you informed about my progress (but probably not so much time in the coming month).
Peter
Hi Peter,
I get 3.579 GHz with a Df of 0.6. Small end is 608 MHz above cutoff.
With your soldered on big end, how will you achieve mirror like & scratch free surface finishing?
Might also considering adding a compression O ring at the small end, so by varying bolt torque around the circumference you can adjust end plate parallelism to achieve lowest rtn loss and highest Q.
The coupler design needs to avoid exciting the degenerate TM113 mode which resonances at the same if not very close to the TE013 resonant freq.
With a good build, well matched TE mode coupler and polish, Ql should be around 18k, based on 75% of Qu at 49k. Specific Force should be around 70mN/kWrf.
Best of luck. -
#1958 by Peter Lauwer on 04 Oct, 2017 10:04
-
Frustum TE013 @ ~3.6 GHz
I have made my first frustum cavity. It is all handwork. Still have to make the coupling loop(s), so it may take a few weeks before I can measure the exact resonance frequencies. It is designed to have the TE013 at 3.55 GHz. Only the small end has a flange. Side wall and big endplate (flat) are from 0.5 mm copper, small endplate 1.0 mm, flange 2 mm. Dims: small diam 123 mm, big diam 204 mm, height 164 mm.
I'll keep you informed about my progress (but probably not so much time in the coming month).
Peter
Hi Peter,
I get 3.579 GHz with a Df of 0.6. Small end is 608 MHz above cutoff.
With your soldered on big end, how will you achieve mirror like & scratch free surface finishing?
Might also considering adding a compression O ring at the small end, so by varying bolt torque around the circumference you can adjust end plate parallelism to achieve lowest rtn loss and highest Q.
The coupler design needs to avoid exciting the degenerate TM113 mode which resonances at the same if not very close to the TE013 resonant freq.
With a good build, well matched TE mode coupler and polish, Ql should be around 18k, based on 75% of Qu at 49k. Specific Force should be around 70mN/kWrf.
Best of luck.
Hi Phil,
Thanks.
Actually, I don't intend to achieve mirror like & scratch free surface finishing. With the test cavities I described earlier, I have reached Q's of some 10k, with unpolished surfaces. I don't mind if the Q is a factor of 2 lower than maximum reachable.
(and there has been already some discussion on this forum whether scratches, much smaller than the wavelength, will have a measurable influence on the Q. I think the Q is influenced by average surface condition (resistance), which, of course, depends on oxide layer, surface roughness, etc. But we should not exaggerate the influence of small scratches. It will be interesting, though, to measure the Q of a test cavity with polished surface and then degrade it with sandpaper and remeasure the Q. Maybe, sometime...).
A compression O-ring might be a good idea. I will think about it.
Cheers,
Peter -
#1959 by Peter Lauwer on 04 Oct, 2017 10:10
-
I think it is not a good idea to integrate heat producing parts (the amplifier) with the cavity. It means that rotating the frustum by 180 degrees (and vertical), an important and easy test, will be rather meaningless.Hi
You mean like this?
qraal
Interesting, page 4:Quote from: Martin TajmarWe plan to build an EMDrive model similar to White et al. on our upgraded thrust balance as shown in Fig. 3. Our vacuum chamber is much larger allowing for better electromagnetic shielding. We plan to optimize the thermal design to limit any centre of gravity shifts due to thermal expansion. In addition, other geometries will be extensively tested as well.
Figure 3 attached. It is designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance.
)
