-
#880
by
Mark7777777
on 24 Feb, 2019 01:29
-
您好 我在不断反思我设计的腔体推力弱小的原因，我认为必须要以端面电磁场强度为标准，大小端面的电磁强度差异应最大化，而不能以空间电磁场强度值为准。我设计的腔体端面电磁强度差异很小，而陈粤博士的设计实现了这种差异最大化的效果。 腔体的设计原则不准确，则很难获得推力效果。我个人的工作非常繁忙，希望各位能参考我的思路，继续设计新腔体，并投入实验。另外，TE013模不能获得最佳电磁场差异率，不适合实验。
“Hello, I am constantly rethinking the reason why the cavity thrust of my design is weak. I think that it is necessary to use the end-face electromagnetic field strength as the standard, and the electromagnetic strength difference between the large and small end faces should be maximized, but not the spatial electromagnetic field strength value. The difference in electromagnetic strength between the end faces of the cavity I designed is very small, and Dr. Chen Yue's design achieves the effect of maximizing this difference. The design principle of the cavity is not accurate, and it is difficult to obtain the thrust effect. My personal work is very busy. I hope that you can refer to my ideas and continue to design new chambers and put them into experiment. In addition, the TE013 mode does not achieve the best electromagnetic field difference rate and is not suitable for experiments.”
-
#881
by
Chris Bergin
on 24 Feb, 2019 03:06
-
oyzw, read the PM about posting in English. There have been complaints, valid one as this is an English language forum.
You have a period of time to edit the recent posts into English.
-
#882
by
Ricvil
on 24 Feb, 2019 14:08
-
您好 我在不断反思我设计的腔体推力弱小的原因，我认为必须要以端面电磁场强度为标准，大小端面的电磁强度差异应最大化，而不能以空间电磁场强度值为准。我设计的腔体端面电磁强度差异很小，而陈粤博士的设计实现了这种差异最大化的效果。 腔体的设计原则不准确，则很难获得推力效果。我个人的工作非常繁忙，希望各位能参考我的思路，继续设计新腔体，并投入实验。另外，TE013模不能获得最佳电磁场差异率，不适合实验。
“Hello, I am constantly rethinking the reason why the cavity thrust of my design is weak. I think that it is necessary to use the end-face electromagnetic field strength as the standard, and the electromagnetic strength difference between the large and small end faces should be maximized, but not the spatial electromagnetic field strength value. The difference in electromagnetic strength between the end faces of the cavity I designed is very small, and Dr. Chen Yue's design achieves the effect of maximizing this difference. The design principle of the cavity is not accurate, and it is difficult to obtain the thrust effect. My personal work is very busy. I hope that you can refer to my ideas and continue to design new chambers and put them into experiment. In addition, the TE013 mode does not achieve the best electromagnetic field difference rate and is not suitable for experiments.”
Hi oyzw
Are you looking for something singular like this?
Me too.
But it appears to be only a bad simulation, perhaps a TM 212, with Teflon gasket, some gaussian noise and other details.
Many sensible discussions about fractals, but none about the intense field strenght gradient in the middle of conical section surface.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1399843#msg1399843
-
#883
by
meberbs
on 24 Feb, 2019 19:42
-
It seems like a very fundamental idea and design, that one can adapt in unlimited ways, limited only by your imagination.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.amp
So this is not a superconductor. First of all, if it was its utility is killed by the fact that they have to keep vibrating it, and have it surrounded by a coil with a pulsed current running through it (Also, they have a pulsed current running through the supposed superconductor as well). This makes it an active device that consumes energy to run.
The claim that it would satisfy the perfect exclusion of magnetic fields because it is carrying a current and it is vibrating and would therefore exclude magnetic field lines from other magnets. This is a complete non-sequiter. It having its own magnetic field under its default state is not the same thing as reacting to the presence of an external magnetic field to generate a perfect exclusion of that field from its interior.
They also describe it as having a thickness of approximately the London penetration depth. They ignore that this depth is material dependent and use the depth for a different actual superconductor. Also, the London penetration depth is the thickness where about 60% of the external magnetic field is excluded (because you need some thickness of material, "perfect exclusion" has an asterisk on it in practice.) This means that their device is designed to be too thin to actually exhibit true superconducting properties.
-
#884
by
Star One
on 24 Feb, 2019 21:17
-
-
#885
by
oyzw
on 25 Feb, 2019 02:47
-
您好 我在不断反思我设计的腔体推力弱小的原因，我认为必须要以端面电磁场强度为标准，大小端面的电磁强度差异应最大化，而不能以空间电磁场强度值为准。我设计的腔体端面电磁强度差异很小，而陈粤博士的设计实现了这种差异最大化的效果。 腔体的设计原则不准确，则很难获得推力效果。我个人的工作非常繁忙，希望各位能参考我的思路，继续设计新腔体，并投入实验。另外，TE013模不能获得最佳电磁场差异率，不适合实验。
“Hello, I am constantly rethinking the reason why the cavity thrust of my design is weak. I think that it is necessary to use the end-face electromagnetic field strength as the standard, and the electromagnetic strength difference between the large and small end faces should be maximized, but not the spatial electromagnetic field strength value. The difference in electromagnetic strength between the end faces of the cavity I designed is very small, and Dr. Chen Yue's design achieves the effect of maximizing this difference. The design principle of the cavity is not accurate, and it is difficult to obtain the thrust effect. My personal work is very busy. I hope that you can refer to my ideas and continue to design new chambers and put them into experiment. In addition, the TE013 mode does not achieve the best electromagnetic field difference rate and is not suitable for experiments.”
Hi oyzw
Are you looking for something singular like this?
Me too.
But it appears to be only a bad simulation, perhaps a TM 212, with Teflon gasket, some gaussian noise and other details.
Many sensible discussions about fractals, but none about the intense field strenght gradient in the middle of conical section surface.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1399843#msg1399843
Hello, yes. To form a good difference in electromagnetic field gradient, it is best to load a high-k material or use an intracavity conductive diaphragm to create a disturbance to the electromagnetic field. The TE013 cavity is to be loaded with polymer on the small end face, so that the electromagnetic field strength of the small end face continues to increase, in order to obtain a significant thrust response.
-
#886
by
Monomorphic
on 25 Feb, 2019 18:09
-
Hello, yes. To form a good difference in electromagnetic field gradient, it is best to load a high-k material or use an intracavity conductive diaphragm to create a disturbance to the electromagnetic field. The TE013 cavity is to be loaded with polymer on the small end face, so that the electromagnetic field strength of the small end face continues to increase, in order to obtain a significant thrust response.
I have a piece of HDPE that I had previously used elsewhere. Using the HDPE on the small end, there are three obvious modes within the bandwidth I can test (2.35GHz - 2.45GHz). What looks like TE013 may have moved from ~2.401GHz to ~2.36798GHz and is very near that second mode at 2.36759GHz.
-
#887
by
oyzw
on 26 Feb, 2019 08:05
-
Hello, yes. To form a good difference in electromagnetic field gradient, it is best to load a high-k material or use an intracavity conductive diaphragm to create a disturbance to the electromagnetic field. The TE013 cavity is to be loaded with polymer on the small end face, so that the electromagnetic field strength of the small end face continues to increase, in order to obtain a significant thrust response.
I have a piece of HDPE that I had previously used elsewhere. Using the HDPE on the small end, there are three obvious modes within the bandwidth I can test (2.35GHz - 2.45GHz). What looks like TE013 may have moved from ~2.401GHz to ~2.36798GHz and is very near that second mode at 2.36759GHz.
Can you directly calculate the sum of the electric field and magnetic field strength data on the large and small end faces? The total intensity difference of the electromagnetic field at the end face may not exceed 10%.
-
#888
by
Monomorphic
on 26 Feb, 2019 13:09
-
Can you directly calculate the sum of the electric field and magnetic field strength data on the large and small end faces? The total intensity difference of the electromagnetic field at the end face may not exceed 10%.
I am not sure if FEKO can do that but I will take a look. I am curious where you get the idea that the EM-field difference between end-plates may not exceed 10%. This is the first time I have seen that.
-
#889
by
Bob Woods
on 27 Feb, 2019 23:22
-
-
#890
by
MathewOrman
on 02 Mar, 2019 09:31
-
The method of propelling without momentum split is to convert electric energy to kinetic using full momentum transfer by pushing or pooling against space occupied by xxxx entity of matter... That way momentum and energy i conserved... In reality some energy will be converted to heat due to ohmic loses...
-
#891
by
Notsosureofit
on 02 Mar, 2019 14:28
-
The method of propelling without momentum split is to convert electric energy to kinetic using full momentum transfer by pushing or pooling against space occupied by xxxx entity of matter... That way momentum and energy i conserved... In reality some energy will be converted to heat due to ohmic loses...
Any new transfer mechanism would be especially welcome !!!!
-
#892
by
Ricvil
on 03 Mar, 2019 02:47
-
IMHO the EMdrive appears to be a curvature induced squeezed microwave fields resonator., with a spatial asymmetric noise response of cavity.
Aero's simulations using meep (adding proposital noise to accelerate convergence) show many times this behaviour,
But it is just an idea under evolution.
-
#893
by
MathewOrman
on 03 Mar, 2019 08:53
-
The method of propelling without momentum split is to convert electric energy to kinetic using full momentum transfer by pushing or pooling against space occupied by xxxx entity of matter... That way momentum and energy i conserved... In reality some energy will be converted to heat due to ohmic loses...
Any new transfer mechanism would be especially welcome !!!!
Use Orman Force law and equations and you will have a drive without momentum split AKA propellant-less drive...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
-
#894
by
MathewOrman
on 03 Mar, 2019 09:19
-
The method of propelling without momentum split is to convert electric energy to kinetic using full momentum transfer by pushing or pooling against space occupied by xxxx entity of matter... That way momentum and energy i conserved... In reality some energy will be converted to heat due to ohmic loses...
Any new transfer mechanism would be especially welcome !!!!
Use Orman Force law and equations and you will have a drive without momentum split AKA propellant-less drive...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
I made a public disclosure of physics behind Orman Force Drive because the laws of physics are not patent-able and one must establish a patent priority date as early as possible...
The xxxx name of the entity is in Orman Force equation and will be disclosed in the patent if ever published since prospective owners of Orman Force Drive technology may elect to make it proprietary...
-
#895
by
Notsosureofit
on 03 Mar, 2019 11:59
-
The method of propelling without momentum split is to convert electric energy to kinetic using full momentum transfer by pushing or pooling against space occupied by xxxx entity of matter... That way momentum and energy i conserved... In reality some energy will be converted to heat due to ohmic loses...
Any new transfer mechanism would be especially welcome !!!!
Use Orman Force law and equations and you will have a drive without momentum split AKA propellant-less drive...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
I made a public disclosure of physics behind Orman Force Drive because the laws of physics are not patent-able and one must establish a patent priority date as early as possible...
The xxxx name of the entity is in Orman Force equation and will be disclosed in the patent if ever published since prospective owners of Orman Force Drive technology may elect to make it proprietary...
Ok. Well, I guess we will just have to be content with Einstein and the Standard Model 'til then.
-
#896
by
meberbs
on 03 Mar, 2019 17:45
-
Use Orman Force law and equations and you will have a drive without momentum split AKA propellant-less drive...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhldn0ef138&feature=youtu.be
I made a public disclosure of physics behind Orman Force Drive because the laws of physics are not patent-able and one must establish a patent priority date as early as possible...
The xxxx name of the entity is in Orman Force equation and will be disclosed in the patent if ever published since prospective owners of Orman Force Drive technology may elect to make it proprietary...
Have you already forgotten
the post you just made in the other thread where you finally found an experiment that seemed to convince you that the effects predicted by standard electrodynamics do in fact exist, so it is standard electrodynamics that works, not your so-called force law?
(I call it "so-called" force law, because you have yet to provide a version of it that has consistent units, so it does not predict a force and is self-inconsistent.)
-
#897
by
oyzw
on 05 Mar, 2019 00:13
-
Can you directly calculate the sum of the electric field and magnetic field strength data on the large and small end faces? The total intensity difference of the electromagnetic field at the end face may not exceed 10%.
I am not sure if FEKO can do that but I will take a look. I am curious where you get the idea that the EM-field difference between end-plates may not exceed 10%. This is the first time I have seen that.
In Cannae's expired patent, the electromagnetic field gradient difference is described, with a numerical limit of approximately 13%.
-
#898
by
rfmwguy
on 06 Mar, 2019 13:47
-
3 year absence from forum. 350 mile move, lake house bought and being renovated, no experimental work and don't see any in the near future. My "famous" ADHD has me focused elsewhere...
Seems drive work winding down here and elsewhere. A bit sad but linevitable without a high level breakthru at an accredited lab. NRL? NASA?
Cheers to all, especially those who encouraged me during my garage lab days.
"Set aside philosophy and keyboarding for a soldering iron and lets come up with the next greatest thing."
Peace...out.
Dave
-
#899
by
X_RaY
on 06 Mar, 2019 17:55
-
@all
Interesting article on the Casimir effect...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.07994.pdfChiral Casimir Forces: Repulsive, Enhanced, Tunable
Qing-Dong Jiang1, Frank Wilczek1234 1Department of Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm SE-106 91 Sweden 2Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 USA 3Wilczek Quantum Center, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China 4Department of Physics and Origins Project, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ 25287 USA
Both theoretical interest and practical significance attach to the sign and strength of Casimir
forces. A famous, discouraging no-go theorem states that “The Casimir force between two bodies
with reflection symmetry is always attractive.” Here we identify a loophole in the reasoning, and
propose a universal way to realize repulsive Casimir forces. We show that the sign and strength
of Casimir forces can be adjusted by inserting optically active or gyrotropic media between bodies,
and modulated by external fields.