-
#800 by Ricvil on 22 Jan, 2019 17:58
-
Let me do a question.
The conical section are really in contact with the flat end plates, or was used some kind of Insulator between them, creating a lambda/2 stub at two sides?
If in contact, is the corner at big end sharp, or there is a small curvature?
-
#801 by Ricvil on 23 Jan, 2019 00:12
-
BSW effect!!
Very interesting, considering the cavity is producing the analog of "event horizons".
What kind of analog strong effect could it to produce?
-
#802 by OnlyMe on 23 Jan, 2019 03:02
-
Let me do a question.
The conical section are really in contact with the flat end plates, or was used some kind of Insulator between them, creating a lambda/2 stub at two sides?
If in contact, is the corner at big end sharp, or there is a small curvature?
I believe that for all publicly posted designs, the large ends are in contact with the frustum walls. Most later designs both ends seem to be in conductive contact with the frustum walls. Shawyer, SeeShells and Prof. Yang (I believe) started with designs with an adjustable small end plate.., still I believe the intent was to maintain conductive contact even between the small end plate and the frustum walls. I don’t remember either Shawyer or Prof. Yang providing sufficient design detail to be certain. SeeShells did provide considerable detail, you might check back to the latter part of 2015 maybe Later portion of Thread 6 early Thread 7. -
#803 by Ricvil on 24 Jan, 2019 09:41
-
Dear Onlyme.
Thank you by the indication.
It was reported as a aproximation error, but the asymmetric field pointed by Seeshells, appears to be exactly the rare case of 3D odd-degeneracy, explained in the article anexed.
"As a result, two eigenmodes are in the broken-symmetry phase with infini-
tesimal T breaking and the other one stays in the symmetric
phase. The existence of the latter is determined solely by
the fact that these non-Hermitian eigenfrequencies are
given by the roots of a cubic equation with real coefficients.
The latter is well known but has never found its way into
non-Hermitian systems as far as we know, since it is very
rare to find real eigenvalues systematically in non-Hermitian systems without the PT symmetry."
And there is, of course, the beautiful asymmetric RS signature of a possible Fano resonance.
PS: PT symmetry and it's breaking can be purely dissipative (without gain).
-
#804 by oyzw on 25 Jan, 2019 01:40
-
Dear Onlyme.
观察这个电磁场分布图，未呈现出明显的电磁场强度差异，腔体净推力也不会太明显。包括我之前设计的TE013模腔体，内部电磁场强度梯度差异都很弱。一定要采用新的结构设计，来提高电磁梯度差异，比如采用内部导电结构来偏转电磁场形态。
Thank you by the indication.
It was reported as a aproximation error, but the asymmetric field pointed by Seeshells, appears to be exactly the rare case of 3D odd-degeneracy, explained in the article anexed.
"As a result, two eigenmodes are in the broken-symmetry phase with infini-
tesimal T breaking and the other one stays in the symmetric
phase. The existence of the latter is determined solely by
the fact that these non-Hermitian eigenfrequencies are
given by the roots of a cubic equation with real coefficients.
The latter is well known but has never found its way into
non-Hermitian systems as far as we know, since it is very
rare to find real eigenvalues systematically in non-Hermitian systems without the PT symmetry."
And there is, of course, the beautiful asymmetric RS signature of a possible Fano resonance.
PS: PT symmetry and it's breaking can be purely dissipative (without gain). -
#805 by Mark7777777 on 25 Jan, 2019 02:27
-
Dear Onlyme.
观察这个电磁场分布图，未呈现出明显的电磁场强度差异，腔体净推力也不会太明显。包括我之前设计的TE013模腔体，内部电磁场强度梯度差异都很弱。一定要采用新的结构设计，来提高电磁梯度差异，比如采用内部导电结构来偏转电磁场形态。
Thank you by the indication.
It was reported as a aproximation error, but the asymmetric field pointed by Seeshells, appears to be exactly the rare case of 3D odd-degeneracy, explained in the article anexed.
"As a result, two eigenmodes are in the broken-symmetry phase with infini-
tesimal T breaking and the other one stays in the symmetric
phase. The existence of the latter is determined solely by
the fact that these non-Hermitian eigenfrequencies are
given by the roots of a cubic equation with real coefficients.
The latter is well known but has never found its way into
non-Hermitian systems as far as we know, since it is very
rare to find real eigenvalues systematically in non-Hermitian systems without the PT symmetry."
And there is, of course, the beautiful asymmetric RS signature of a possible Fano resonance.
PS: PT symmetry and it's breaking can be purely dissipative (without gain).
Google translate:
Observing this electromagnetic field distribution map, there is no obvious difference in electromagnetic field strength, and the net thrust of the cavity is not too obvious. Including the TE013 cavity that I designed earlier, the internal electromagnetic field strength gradient is very weak. New structural designs must be used to improve electromagnetic gradient differences, such as the use of internal conductive structures to deflect electromagnetic field patterns. -
#806 by meberbs on 25 Jan, 2019 06:01
-
Dear Onlyme.
Thank you by the indication.
It was reported as a aproximation error, but the asymmetric field pointed by Seeshells, appears to be exactly the rare case of 3D odd-degeneracy, explained in the article anexed.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but the pictures provided* have no relationship to the article that you provided. Also, that picture really does appear to be a case of a modelling error, it is not hard to get all sort of weird results from such models if you configure them wrong. There are straightforward ways to confirm results in cases like this, such as changing the mesh and see if you still get the same results.
In general, I am not sure what value you are intending to add with your post. You don't draw any conclusions that would explain a working emDrive, or help with running any experiments. You seem to be saying "hey look, asymmetry!" but asymmetry doesn't just erase conservation of energy and momentum, and you can't cal 2 things equivalent just because they aren't symmetric.
*you should post a link to original sources, if it is a locked thread, right click on the post title and click "copy shortcut" or whatever similar text your browser provides. -
#807 by Ricvil on 25 Jan, 2019 11:27
-
Dear Onlyme.
Thank you by the indication.
It was reported as a aproximation error, but the asymmetric field pointed by Seeshells, appears to be exactly the rare case of 3D odd-degeneracy, explained in the article anexed.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but the pictures provided* have no relationship to the article that you provided. Also, that picture really does appear to be a case of a modelling error, it is not hard to get all sort of weird results from such models if you configure them wrong. There are straightforward ways to confirm results in cases like this, such as changing the mesh and see if you still get the same results.
In general, I am not sure what value you are intending to add with your post. You don't draw any conclusions that would explain a working emDrive, or help with running any experiments. You seem to be saying "hey look, asymmetry!" but asymmetry doesn't just erase conservation of energy and momentum, and you can't cal 2 things equivalent just because they aren't symmetric.
*you should post a link to original sources, if it is a locked thread, right click on the post title and click "copy shortcut" or whatever similar text your browser provides.
Dear meberbs,
I will do a affirmation and you can agree or disagree.
A simple yes or no.
If irrelevant to you, then this conversation ends here, and no more waste of time to us.
There is a Fano like resonance happening at the frequency of simulation.
Quoted from rfmguy , thread 6, Page 169
"Thanks for the new runs. Almost positive rfmwguy_freq_sweep_reflection_coefficient_real.jpg is a phase transition rather than a S11 plot."
-
#808 by meberbs on 25 Jan, 2019 16:50
-
Dear meberbs,
First, that is not a link to the original sources which I explained how to provide. Second, while the text you provided is from rfmwguy, the pictures were from Monomorphic, again demonstrating why you should post the link.
I will do a affirmation and you can agree or disagree.
A simple yes or no.
If irrelevant to you, then this conversation ends here, and no more waste of time to us.
There is a Fano like resonance happening in the frequency of simulation.
Quoted from rfmguy , thread 6, Page 169
"Thanks for the new runs. Almost positive rfmwguy_freq_sweep_reflection_coefficient_real.jpg is a phase transition rather than a S11 plot."
As to your question, the answer is no.
The first picture in your post is meaningless, as the quoted text says. The real part of an S parameter on its own has little meaning.
The simulation was run by someone still learning how to use the tool at the time. They later posted an alternate resonance picture from the same run that did not show the distorted mode shape.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1500243#msg1500243
Based on this, the original picture likely was due to a numerical error, probably due to something like the scale auto-adjusting and making numerical noise visible in a picture where the field was effectively 0 everywhere.
Also, the plots shown here are all plotting different things than what Fano resonance refers to. -
#809 by Ricvil on 25 Jan, 2019 18:36
-
The "real part" is the phase of S parameter, as explained by the quote, so it has a very clear meaning, a 180 degree inversion.Dear meberbs,
First, that is not a link to the original sources which I explained how to provide. Second, while the text you provided is from rfmwguy, the pictures were from Monomorphic, again demonstrating why you should post the link.
I will do a affirmation and you can agree or disagree.
A simple yes or no.
If irrelevant to you, then this conversation ends here, and no more waste of time to us.
There is a Fano like resonance happening in the frequency of simulation.
Quoted from rfmguy , thread 6, Page 169
"Thanks for the new runs. Almost positive rfmwguy_freq_sweep_reflection_coefficient_real.jpg is a phase transition rather than a S11 plot."
As to your question, the answer is no.
The first picture in your post is meaningless, as the quoted text says. The real part of an S parameter on its own has little meaning.
The simulation was run by someone still learning how to use the tool at the time. They later posted an alternate resonance picture from the same run that did not show the distorted mode shape.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1500243#msg1500243
Based on this, the original picture likely was due to a numerical error, probably due to something like the scale auto-adjusting and making numerical noise visible in a picture where the field was effectively 0 everywhere.
Also, the plots shown here are all plotting different things than what Fano resonance refers to.
If you cannot see the signature of a Fano like resonant effect, that it is only your problem.
The simulation is in time domain, and the frequency of interest is exactly in the middle of narrow bandwidth of phase inversion, so the frequency of the source must be exact, or the simulation will converge out of phase inversion region, and yes, the discretization process will add a quantization noise and it can spread the energy of the source out of phase inversion region, but during the transients of simulation, the pattern of fields of phase inversion region may appears.
I will to anex a reference about Fano like resonances.
PS: Link to article of M. Limonov - "Fano resonances in photonics"
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amolf.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/FanoKivshar.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiXze3474ngAhUFJrkGHcEDAq0QFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw1S58FQRAz6dVehwm0TKD4t
In the article the "delta" parameter, related to "q" parameter by q=cot(delta) and is related to the phase response of one of oscillators as explained in the article. -
#810 by Alex_O on 25 Jan, 2019 19:36
-
Hello friends ! I have been reading the forum for many years, and I want to send a lot of respect to all the forum members. You are great fellows.
Please have a look at one simulation? I want to understand what this can mean.
Once I thought that the magnetron .. That it works like that is unstable. And I decided to model. I took two frequencies, two modes and came up with the idea that you can quickly change, switch the frequency. It seemed to me that I heard photons knocking on walls. Knock Knock.
Then I want to ask - what will the electrons do in the skin layer, what will happen to the eddy currents in the walls.?
It seemed to me that using a computer you can create a very complex motion of traveling waves in the resonator. And you can build a special system to control the movement of electrons in the walls.
It even seems to me that I hear the vibrating hammer knocking. But this hammer knocks only in a small bottom. And the hammer has no retroactive impact force.
I also wanted to hear how this resonator. That it radiates gravitational waves. But how? It seems there is a focus of gravitational waves here?
-
#811 by meberbs on 25 Jan, 2019 20:24
-
The "real part" is the phase of S parameter, as explained by the quote, so it has a very clear meaning, a 180 degree inversion.
The real part is a weird meaningless (on its own) mix of the amplitude and phase. To actually get the phase you need the imaginary part as well. A sudden change in sign of the real part could represent a 180 degree phase shift, a 90 degree phase shift, or possibly some random phase shift if there are also amplitude shifts at the same time.If you cannot see the signature of a Fano like resonant effect, that it is only your problem.
It appears you have no clue what you are looking at. The axes of the graph are simply not the parameters that would be relevant for Fano resonance. S11 parameters are not something that are related to Fano resonance in this situation. Actually, I don't know of a way that you could make Fano resonance applicable to this situation.The simulation is in time domain, and the frequency of interest is exactly in the middle of narrow bandwidth of phase inversion, so the frequency of the source must be exact, or the simulation will converge out of phase inversion region, and yes, the discretization process will add a quantization noise and it can spread the energy of the source out of phase inversion region, but during the transients of simulation, the pattern of fields of phase inversion region may appears.
What in the world are you talking about? It sounds like you are trying to respond to my explanation of why the resonance pattern simulation is wrong by using words I used, but nothing you are saying actually relates to the points I made (such as the fact that the original modeler, found that the picture you showed was clearly an artifact due to them not understanding how to use the tool fully.) Plus you mix in some more comments about phase that further indicates that you don't understand what the S11 plots mean. -
#812 by meberbs on 25 Jan, 2019 20:41
-
Hello friends ! I have been reading the forum for many years, and I want to send a lot of respect to all the forum members. You are great fellows.
Welcome!
Please have a look at one simulation? I want to understand what this can mean.
It means that someone took results for 2 different resonance modes and superimposed them in a single image to compare their appearances.
The frequency and the graph scale are both significantly different for the 2 modes, which is to be expected.Once I thought that the magnetron .. That it works like that is unstable. And I decided to model. I took two frequencies, two modes and came up with the idea that you can quickly change, switch the frequency. It seemed to me that I heard photons knocking on walls. Knock Knock.
It is entirely possible to put 2 frequencies in at the same time the result would be a simple linear superposition of the individual results.
The exact result of rapidly switching between 2 frequencies depends on several things including the definition of rapid, especially relative to the cavity fill time. Fast enough, and it would basically just be equivalent to putting them in at the same time, but with half of the respective power. Slower, and it would just transition between the 2 modes over the relevant fill/decay times. There would be no knocking. The location of the peak fields moving back and forth would not have significant effects.Then I want to ask - what will the electrons do in the skin layer, what will happen to the eddy currents in the walls.?
Linear superposition, just like the fields.I also wanted to hear how this resonator. That it radiates gravitational waves. But how? It seems there is a focus of gravitational waves here?
Gravitational waves are generally only significant when coming from black holes, the most massive objects in the universe (Or comparably massive stars). No benchtop anything can radiate gravitational waves in any measureable way (energy, momentum, or amplitude of spatial distortion.) -
#813 by Ricvil on 25 Jan, 2019 21:48
-
The "real part" is the phase of S parameter, as explained by the quote, so it has a very clear meaning, a 180 degree inversion.
The real part is a weird meaningless (on its own) mix of the amplitude and phase. To actually get the phase you need the imaginary part as well. A sudden change in sign of the real part could represent a 180 degree phase shift, a 90 degree phase shift, or possibly some random phase shift if there are also amplitude shifts at the same time.If you cannot see the signature of a Fano like resonant effect, that it is only your problem.
It appears you have no clue what you are looking at. The axes of the graph are simply not the parameters that would be relevant for Fano resonance. S11 parameters are not something that are related to Fano resonance in this situation. Actually, I don't know of a way that you could make Fano resonance applicable to this situation.The simulation is in time domain, and the frequency of interest is exactly in the middle of narrow bandwidth of phase inversion, so the frequency of the source must be exact, or the simulation will converge out of phase inversion region, and yes, the discretization process will add a quantization noise and it can spread the energy of the source out of phase inversion region, but during the transients of simulation, the pattern of fields of phase inversion region may appears.
What in the world are you talking about? It sounds like you are trying to respond to my explanation of why the resonance pattern simulation is wrong by using words I used, but nothing you are saying actually relates to the points I made (such as the fact that the original modeler, found that the picture you showed was clearly an artifact due to them not understanding how to use the tool fully.) Plus you mix in some more comments about phase that further indicates that you don't understand what the S11 plots mean.
Thank's meberbs.
Your appointment about the wrong nomenclature is correct.
My fault.
The plot just shows a fast transition of one component of reflection coefficient ( max norm equals to 1), with a signal change, and I can not affirm it was a almost pi transition of phase response, just like the plot below.
I've added the link about Fano resonances in my last post.
-
#814 by Alex_O on 27 Jan, 2019 16:00
-
Hello friends ! I have been reading the forum for many years, and I want to send a lot of respect to all the forum members. You are great fellows. Please have a look at one simulation? I want to understand what this can mean.
Welcome!
It means that someone took results for 2 different resonance modes and superimposed them in a single image to compare their appearances.
The frequency and the graph scale are both significantly different for the 2 modes, which is to be expected.Once I thought that the magnetron .. That it works like that is unstable. And I decided to model. I took two frequencies, two modes and came up with the idea that you can quickly change, switch the frequency. It seemed to me that I heard photons knocking on walls. Knock Knock.
It is entirely possible to put 2 frequencies in at the same time the result would be a simple linear superposition of the individual results.
The exact result of rapidly switching between 2 frequencies depends on several things including the definition of rapid, especially relative to the cavity fill time. Fast enough, and it would basically just be equivalent to putting them in at the same time, but with half of the respective power. Slower, and it would just transition between the 2 modes over the relevant fill/decay times. There would be no knocking. The location of the peak fields moving back and forth would not have significant effects.Then I want to ask - what will the electrons do in the skin layer, what will happen to the eddy currents in the walls.?
Linear superposition, just like the fields.
Thank you meberbs. I try to carry out non-standard, creative thinking. I read all the known reports and many scientific articles that were also discussed at NFS. I noticed (like NFS) that R.Shawyer used magnetrons, and teams from Dresden, NRL and James A Ciomperlik (Helloy James!!) used solid-state microwave generators. I also read a lot of Rodal's (hello Jose!!) messages and understand the problems of calculating radiation pressure in a closed cavity, for example, Greg Egan. But I would like, as a detective, to show flexible thinking outside the box. I would like to ask the most unexpected, the most stupid questions, but receive the most accurate answers based on the most relevant physics. So I went to this forum for discussion. Thank.
So, about the magnetron. I compare the magnetron with the ideas
of Mario J. Pinheiro (On Newton's Third Law ) that the force of action and reaction works no faster than the speed of light). I also like the Montillet reports on the Advanced Propulsion Workshop 2016/2017.
I thought that we should look at a time interval of about 10 -10 seconds. In the system magnetron-waveguide-resonator. What is a magnetron? How does he work? Is there a magnetron in nature, some important detail?
I went to the world of comsol and found an article about Key-Holes Magnetron Design and Multiphysics Simulation . I now understand better what a magnetron is.
Also on NFSQuoteRe: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
See, Shell says (helloy SeeShells!!) - My goodness. If you strap a magnetron to a frustum you are going to get a mess.
« Reply #3294 on: 05/19/2018 03:47 pm »
Like
Quote from: X_RaY on 05/19/2018 03:06 pm
On the Anomalous Forces in Microwave Cavity-Magnetron Systems
March 2018
DOI10.13140/RG.2.2.14981.86243
Elio Battista PorcelliElio Battista PorcelliVicto S. FilhoVicto S. Filho
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324023769_On_the_Anomalous_Forces_in_Microwave_Cavity-Magne...
My goodness. If you strap a magnetron to a Frustum you're going to get a mess. Heat, magnetic fields, DC currents and pulsing AC along with RF splattering all over base frequencies.
Rfmwguy and Monomorphic and a few others found this out. If you're going to use a magnetron to get your RF, please clean up the power supply, fix the issues with the heater, thermally stabilize the magnetron, and get it away from the frustum!
Shell
I read Mario J. Pinheiro and I think - wow, maybe a mess - is that what we need? But it is necessary to look at the physics of magnetron on a time interval of the order of 10 -10 sec?
Seems to have one idea. These are the effects of GTR in the cavity drive if the magnetron creates plane waves.
What do you think about the magnetron in general?
Helloy James !! Please tell me if your installation can quickly-quickly switch the frequency and test the hypothesis that the Emdrive needs a very-very fast-unstable magnetron?
==
Sorry, I use Google translator. -
#815 by dustinthewind on 27 Jan, 2019 18:15
-
For the most part this is true. There is very little coupling to the vacuum normally to detect much less generate gravity waves.Hello friends ! I have been reading the forum for many years, and I want to send a lot of respect to all the forum members. You are great fellows.
Gravitational waves are generally only significant when coming from black holes, the most massive objects in the universe (Or comparably massive stars). No benchtop anything can radiate gravitational waves in any measureable way (energy, momentum, or amplitude of spatial distortion.)
...I also wanted to hear how this resonator. That it radiates gravitational waves. But how? It seems there is a focus of gravitational waves here?
Some physicists think LIGO is generating gravity waves because of their coupling. Because gravity waves can induce detectable changes in EM fields it also goes the other way. Their EM fields can also induce minor gravity waves.
There are many systems like this. Electric generators can also be electric motors. Thermal heat engines that run off thermal gradients can also be used to induce thermal gradients if energy is put in. Water flowing over a pump can generate power while power put into the pump can be used to pump water, and it goes on and on. The key is coupling.
I was speculating if Eugene Podkletnov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov experiments might have some validity. If so there there may have been a massive increase in the coupling to the vacuum. When an object goes very fast is goes through Lorentz contraction which I believe is induced by the vacuum. There are also factors on that Lorentz effect by acceleration which is what the Mach Effect questions.
By Eugene accelerating charges in superconductors which are not normally conducting and very few electrons are involved in superconductivity this means for a set current the charge velocity is much larger, unlike in copper where charge velocity is much slower. I suspected the charge velocities induced and accelerations involved may have increased vacuum coupling via the Lorentz effects involved and the accelerations involved.
There is the plank length of the vacuum which can change and the wave he is generating has components that seem like hyper inflated vacuum, increased plank length, and appears to be a negative gravity waves. He claims it moves faster than light. In a hyper inflated vacuum with increased plank length the speed of light would be faster than in a non-inflated vacuum.
I was speculating a way of generating a continuous form of these waves (using a cavity) re-inflating the vacuum at near the speed of light, counter acting the Lorentz contraction and allowing one to exceed the speed of light non-locally compared to the standard vacuum but not actually exceeding the local speed of light.
All of this depends if Eugene's experiments are valid and actually generate the waves he claims. I tend not to jump to the conclusion he is a liar so I'm still currently interested to learn more. (particularly the gravity impulse generator) -
#816 by Monomorphic on 28 Jan, 2019 13:28
-
Helloy James !! Please tell me if your installation can quickly-quickly switch the frequency and test the hypothesis that the Emdrive needs a very-very fast-unstable magnetron?
Hello and welcome! The signal generator I use is capable of fast frequency switching. You can read about its capabilities here: https://windfreaktech.com/product/rf-signal-generator-and-power-detector/
However, we have seen that Shawyer now uses solid state RF amplifiers. He claims that the end-plates need to be spherical to get the full "thrust" when using solid state RF.
I've tried both spherical and flat end-plates and I understand that TU Dresden has also tried both without success. -
#817 by meberbs on 28 Jan, 2019 23:42
-
Thank's meberbs.
Thanks, we got some of the confusion cleared up, but I still don't see Fano resonance being applicable in any way to this situation, and even if it was applicable, I don't see how it would have any usefulness to either experimenters, or to coming up with a theory that would allow the device to produce thrust.
Your appointment about the wrong nomenclature is correct.
My fault.
The plot just shows a fast transition of one component of reflection coefficient ( max norm equals to 1), with a signal change, and I can not affirm it was a almost pi transition of phase response, just like the plot below.
I've added the link about Fano resonances in my last post. -
#818 by meberbs on 29 Jan, 2019 00:15
-
For the most part this is true. There is very little coupling to the vacuum normally to detect much less generate gravity waves.
GR generally talks about "space-time," not "the vacuum."Some physicists think LIGO is generating gravity waves because of their coupling. Because gravity waves can induce detectable changes in EM fields it also goes the other way. Their EM fields can also induce minor gravity waves.
I assume you are talking aboutthis. The article doesn't mention the strength of the emission even relative to what is detected there, but my guess would be negligible, and the claim only true if there were rapidly moving large masses rather than photons bouncing back and forth. More importantly, the article says that they came up with their conclusion through a quantum theory, but there is no proven theory of quantum gravity, and not much in terms of good options. Biggest reason for this is the lack of testable predictions, the article I linked mentions an experiment and calls it "unbelievably difficult" What they actually mean is "beyond the capability of any foreseeable technology."All of this depends if Eugene's experiments are valid and actually generate the waves he claims. I tend not to jump to the conclusion he is a liar so I'm still currently interested to learn more. (particularly the gravity impulse generator)
He has asserted that multiple other labs have replicated his experiments, but this is not true. One lab did some tests, but not a replication. There are multiple examples in the article you linked of cases where someone has to be making false statements.
The technical statements he has made about his device amount to complete gibberish. At a minimum he has no clue what he is talking about, and there is absolutely no reason to think that any measurements he made are anything other than experimental error. Apparently the original observation was that smoke was observed rising above a very cold object, which basically indicates there were problems with air currents. -
#819 by oyzw on 29 Jan, 2019 01:18
-
您好 Jamic先生，能否把球形端面腔体的电磁仿真图上传？传统锥形腔体TE模，电磁梯度差异都很小，端面电磁场强度差异更小，所以推力很小，我之前的设计是错误的。TM模应该是更合适的。Helloy James !! Please tell me if your installation can quickly-quickly switch the frequency and test the hypothesis that the Emdrive needs a very-very fast-unstable magnetron?
Hello and welcome! The signal generator I use is capable of fast frequency switching. You can read about its capabilities here: https://windfreaktech.com/product/rf-signal-generator-and-power-detector/
However, we have seen that Shawyer now uses solid state RF amplifiers. He claims that the end-plates need to be spherical to get the full "thrust" when using solid state RF.
I've tried both spherical and flat end-plates and I understand that TU Dresden has also tried both without success.