How is one to separate the electrostriction signal from the purported M-E signal in this data? I see no analysis which demonstrates this.
DeltaMass:Find attached Woodward's latest 2010 analysis on the 2009 rotary data set. I grabbed an earlier 2009 version last night that did not address the electrostriction issue very much. The main thing one has to keep in mind though in regards to separating the M-E delta mass signal at 2-omega, (2X the drive frequency), and the electrostriction signal that is also expressed at 2-omega, is the fact that they are 180 degrees out of phase with each other, AND the fact they follow different scaling rules verses the applied radial bulk acceleration. That is why Woodward archived the video clips of the dynamic oscilloscope traces of the cap-ring's 1- and 2-omega signals that showed these amplitude and phase shifts as the RPM and thus the bulk acceleration of the cap-ring were varied from 0-gess up to 811 gees at 60 revolutions per second (3,600 RPM).
QuoteHow is one to separate the electrostriction signal from the purported M-E signal in this data? I see no analysis which demonstrates this.QuoteDeltaMass:Find attached Woodward's latest 2010 analysis on the 2009 rotary data set. I grabbed an earlier 2009 version last night that did not address the electrostriction issue very much. The main thing one has to keep in mind though in regards to separating the M-E delta mass signal at 2-omega, (2X the drive frequency), and the electrostriction signal that is also expressed at 2-omega, is the fact that they are 180 degrees out of phase with each other, AND the fact they follow different scaling rules verses the applied radial bulk acceleration. That is why Woodward archived the video clips of the dynamic oscilloscope traces of the cap-ring's 1- and 2-omega signals that showed these amplitude and phase shifts as the RPM and thus the bulk acceleration of the cap-ring were varied from 0-gess up to 811 gees at 60 revolutions per second (3,600 RPM).I'm sorry, but this new PDF appears to contain even less data than before. And nobody wanting a quick demonstration of results is going to wade through video files of scope traces.The author himself says that this is not a final report but a work in progress. Clearly what's required is a graph showing the M-E device scaling with rotational frequency, and another showing scaling with applied voltage. A 3D graph would be best of all.So as far as I can see, the fundamental case for mass fluctuations remains unproven. Piezoelectric and electrostrictive effects are able to account for all the data here, unless proven otherwise. That case has not yet been made.
And what did I say in my previous post to KelvinZero? "I used it, (the word demonstrated), not to imply that this data was accepted by the general physics community for it is not, but that it just showed the probable existence of the sought after M-E delta mass signature where very little quantified delta-mass data existed before." "Clearly what's required is a graph showing the M-E device scaling with rotational frequency, and another showing scaling with applied voltage. A 3D graph would be best of all."Your request for cap voltage and RPM graphical data in a 3D format is doable, but will have to be translated from the many Excel spreadsheets that this data was accumulated in over several months time by Woodward. And Woodward almost never makes graphical plots of his data anyway, for he claims that format is too open for misinterpretations."And nobody wanting a quick demonstration of results is going to wade through video files of scope traces."If the M-E video data is still on the web, and you are really interested in this topic, you really ought to find the time to look at it and understand what this M-E rotary video data is trying to tell you. If that's too much effort for you, that's your problem, not mine.
QuoteAnd what did I say in my previous post to KelvinZero? "I used it, (the word demonstrated), not to imply that this data was accepted by the general physics community for it is not, but that it just showed the probable existence of the sought after M-E delta mass signature where very little quantified delta-mass data existed before." "Clearly what's required is a graph showing the M-E device scaling with rotational frequency, and another showing scaling with applied voltage. A 3D graph would be best of all."Your request for cap voltage and RPM graphical data in a 3D format is doable, but will have to be translated from the many Excel spreadsheets that this data was accumulated in over several months time by Woodward. And Woodward almost never makes graphical plots of his data anyway, for he claims that format is too open for misinterpretations."And nobody wanting a quick demonstration of results is going to wade through video files of scope traces."If the M-E video data is still on the web, and you are really interested in this topic, you really ought to find the time to look at it and understand what this M-E rotary video data is trying to tell you. If that's too much effort for you, that's your problem, not mine.I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but rather attempting to describe my impressions. Everything hinges on the data, and I find it quite frankly puzzling that someone (Woodward in this case) would go to so much trouble to construct a non-trivial apparatus and then pretty much skip the entire step of data analysis and presentation, so as to rush to a conclusion that it's "very likely" that mass fluctuations exist. I find that odd. Could it be that he doesn't like his own data? Or that he himself doesn't understand it? I sure do not grok where that distorted sinewavey plot of amplitude vs. rotational frequency comes from. There are three effects here: purported M-E, electrostriction, and piezoelectric effects. On top of all this is a huge amount of thermal drift, evidenced by the blue/red up/down plots. Teasing all these apart is certainly non-trivial - that much is fairly clear, else it would have been published as such already. It is the absence of such an analysis which leaves me with an empty feeling.
Thanks for the ton of data. Re. the y-axis on the graphs: is this an absolute amplitude? If the sign flipped, would we see it on this plot? Reason I ask is because it's said that electrostriction works in antiphase to M-E. It is this assertion that I'm hanging on to in order to come up with possible interpretations of this data. If M-E begins to dominate at higher rotational frequencies, and the antiphase conjecture is correct, and the y-axis is absolute, then a dip such as is observed in the data is to be expected. What confounds me, assuming all the above assumptions are met, is that the y-amplitude appears to then level off at yet higher rotational frequencies. Unfortunately there are only a couple of datapoints after the dip, and the error bars are rather huge. Ambiguity rules here. Obviously one expects the M-E to dominate in this regime and take the y-axis plot nonlinearly upwards. But it does not.Forgive me for not seeing clear signs of M-E in this data. Perhaps you're seeing something I don't?
Quote from: deltaMass on 12/30/2010 03:30 amQuote from: Star-Drive on 12/30/2010 03:22 amQuote from: deltaMass on 12/29/2010 08:36 pmWhat's required to verify the M-E theory (and that's the only thing that matters right now) is a direct confirmation of mass fluctuations. Perhaps we could discuss how best to do this experimentally. Perhaps people will be inspired to build stuff as a result.DeltaMass:Woodward has already demonstrated the existence of mass fluctuations in his 2008-to-2009 mass fluctuation rotary test series that demonstrated the need for concurrent dP/dt AND bulk acceleration signals required to create a well above the noise delta mass signature. So some independent lab needs to replicate these results. The Mark-III rotary tests in question are summarized by Woodward in the attached pdf file from the summer of 2009. There is lots more data available, but it takes tens of MB to transmit. Also note that the video files mentioned in this summary were only on the web for ~60 days due to the nature of the free video archiving service in question. Woodward is notoriously cheap... How is one to separate the electrostriction signal from the purported M-E signal in this data? I see no analysis which demonstrates this.DeltaMass:Find attached Woodward's latest 2010 analysis on the 2009 rotary data set. I grabbed an earlier 2009 version last night that did not address the electrostriction issue very much. The main thing one has to keep in mind though in regards to separating the M-E delta mass signal at 2-omega, (2X the drive frequency), and the electrostriction signal that is also expressed at 2-omega, is the fact that they are 180 degrees out of phase with each other, AND the fact they follow different scaling rules verses the applied radial bulk acceleration. That is why Woodward archived the video clips of the dynamic oscilloscope traces of the cap-ring's 1- and 2-omega signals that showed these amplitude and phase shifts as the RPM and thus the bulk acceleration of the cap-ring were varied from 0-gess up to 811 gees at 60 revolutions per second (3,600 RPM).
Quote from: Star-Drive on 12/30/2010 03:22 amQuote from: deltaMass on 12/29/2010 08:36 pmWhat's required to verify the M-E theory (and that's the only thing that matters right now) is a direct confirmation of mass fluctuations. Perhaps we could discuss how best to do this experimentally. Perhaps people will be inspired to build stuff as a result.DeltaMass:Woodward has already demonstrated the existence of mass fluctuations in his 2008-to-2009 mass fluctuation rotary test series that demonstrated the need for concurrent dP/dt AND bulk acceleration signals required to create a well above the noise delta mass signature. So some independent lab needs to replicate these results. The Mark-III rotary tests in question are summarized by Woodward in the attached pdf file from the summer of 2009. There is lots more data available, but it takes tens of MB to transmit. Also note that the video files mentioned in this summary were only on the web for ~60 days due to the nature of the free video archiving service in question. Woodward is notoriously cheap... How is one to separate the electrostriction signal from the purported M-E signal in this data? I see no analysis which demonstrates this.
Quote from: deltaMass on 12/29/2010 08:36 pmWhat's required to verify the M-E theory (and that's the only thing that matters right now) is a direct confirmation of mass fluctuations. Perhaps we could discuss how best to do this experimentally. Perhaps people will be inspired to build stuff as a result.DeltaMass:Woodward has already demonstrated the existence of mass fluctuations in his 2008-to-2009 mass fluctuation rotary test series that demonstrated the need for concurrent dP/dt AND bulk acceleration signals required to create a well above the noise delta mass signature. So some independent lab needs to replicate these results. The Mark-III rotary tests in question are summarized by Woodward in the attached pdf file from the summer of 2009. There is lots more data available, but it takes tens of MB to transmit. Also note that the video files mentioned in this summary were only on the web for ~60 days due to the nature of the free video archiving service in question. Woodward is notoriously cheap...
What's required to verify the M-E theory (and that's the only thing that matters right now) is a direct confirmation of mass fluctuations. Perhaps we could discuss how best to do this experimentally. Perhaps people will be inspired to build stuff as a result.
Probably not. According to the theory, the mass fluctuations only exhibit when you have both changing acceleration & quickening(time derivative of acceleration) and when you have changing energy in the same volume. It's a condition that virtually never reliably exists in nature, which is convenient as an explanation for why we've never seen evidence of it in nature.Hard disks meet the acceleration criteria but not the changing energy one.
Quote from: cuddihy on 01/07/2011 03:04 amProbably not. According to the theory, the mass fluctuations only exhibit when you have both changing acceleration & quickening(time derivative of acceleration) and when you have changing energy in the same volume. It's a condition that virtually never reliably exists in nature, which is convenient as an explanation for why we've never seen evidence of it in nature.Hard disks meet the acceleration criteria but not the changing energy one.The changing energy criteria I thought would be as the domains were flipped by the write head's magnetic field. Whether that qualifies as a net energy change in terms of G/I reaction I don't know.
Paul, this may look incorrect, considering there are so many variables still unknown, but feel free to use wild guesses if you want.Do you guys have some sort of roadmap for ME Effect? I mean... supposing that it IS real (and you probably have seen enough to believe it), how much time would you expect until you can prove it beyond doubt to the scientific community... how much time until the first applications start being produced (like a small thruster for the ISS and other satellites), how much time should we expect before we can see ships REALLY moved by it?
I won't be alive then