Quote from: Ron Stahl on 09/27/2014 07:52 pmQuoteRodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing stray forces, but he has received no acknowledgement that this is the case. Instead, people are arguing historical narratives, and offering wordy explanations of arbitrary terms. Paul addressed Dr. Rodal's concerns quite well. They're answered. ... I doubt whether anyone is going to find fault with either Eagle's work or Woodward's in this regard, as they both constantly subject themselves to careful input on their experimental setups on a regular basis.You are mistaken and/or confused with something else. Nobody has addressed the issues I have raised concerning parasitic self-excitation of the inverted pendulum due to coupling of swinging with the torsional mode, and the nonlinear nature of the magnetic damping term in the equations of motion. ...
QuoteRodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing stray forces, but he has received no acknowledgement that this is the case. Instead, people are arguing historical narratives, and offering wordy explanations of arbitrary terms. Paul addressed Dr. Rodal's concerns quite well. They're answered. ... I doubt whether anyone is going to find fault with either Eagle's work or Woodward's in this regard, as they both constantly subject themselves to careful input on their experimental setups on a regular basis.
Rodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing stray forces, but he has received no acknowledgement that this is the case. Instead, people are arguing historical narratives, and offering wordy explanations of arbitrary terms.
...QuoteWhat is the expected rate of acceleration? What is the measured acceleration?This is different with every experiment. IMHO, the proper way to know the answer to this, and it is a good question; is to use a high speed laser doppler vibrometer. Other methods are far less precise. Future experiments will use this method if I have anything to say about it. It is fair to say however, that in general the accelerations generated in perovskites operating in the ultrasonic region, where the design provides a typical mechanical Q of about 700, are in the millions of gees. The trouble is that the device also needs to oscillate at a second frequency which is not on the natural resonace of the device, and that oscillation will be tiny if not managed extremely well. In order to know if it has been managed well, one needs a vibrometer. Woodward tracks his accelerations with accelerometers but he cannot assign raw magnitudes to them in this way....
What is the expected rate of acceleration? What is the measured acceleration?
...QuoteHow much electrical power goes into the lattice? In the case of Woodward's current thruster experiments, about 100 watts, and less than one watt is dissipated. But you cannot infer what you suppose from this answer as there are a handful of complex qualifications I would offer were we having a technical discussion of something you understood sufficiently. Fact is you have not asked the right question and you cannot understand the right answer either....
How much electrical power goes into the lattice?
Sorry going to have to call a flag on the play their Rodal. What your saying is only half correct. Paul March did address the issues you initially raised (that is the open letter you wrote that aceshigh reproduced on talk polywell). And I do not think it is too much to assume that Ron is referring to that part of this long discussion.
On one hand you state that you are << just not familiar enough with the experimental setup>> used by Eagleworks for their "Anomalous.." paper and on the other hand you make this blanket, predictive, statement about <<doubt whether anyone is going to find fault>>.
[Any idea when we will see more experimental information from Woodward. Also who is going to be taking over for him in the medium to long term, where Mach Effect research is concerned?
I didn't read back at your specific concern, but it sounds like it is dealt with quite ably when using a dummy load on the balance.
Quote[Any idea when we will see more experimental information from Woodward. Also who is going to be taking over for him in the medium to long term, where Mach Effect research is concerned? Jim should just be back from vacation about now. He just started posting to his reading list but nothing about the new test items yet. It will be an exciting season since he finally will have some PMN on the balance--something I've been after him for since 2007. It's dicy stuff since it has such a tiny thermal bandwidth of operation, but it also can have much improved stats over the PZT the last few years.Heidi Fern has already committed to pursue Jim's work when he is unable. She's that convinced Jim is right in both theory and practice.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/27/2014 09:03 pmQuote from: birchoff on 09/27/2014 08:35 pm.
Quote from: birchoff on 09/27/2014 08:35 pm.
.
Hope that helps. And yeah, you should read the book. There is so much important stuff in that book that even the asides make the book worthwhile. Woodward's proposed model of the electron is going to win him a Nobel Prize if it turns out to be correct, and making these thrusters work provides significant evidence to that end.
So far my feeling is that the "propellantless propulsion proponents" are doing a really great job at NOT convincing an (admittedly already reluctant) mainstream science community that there is any effect at all. ...
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 09/27/2014 03:20 pmHope that helps. And yeah, you should read the book. There is so much important stuff in that book that even the asides make the book worthwhile. Woodward's proposed model of the electron is going to win him a Nobel Prize if it turns out to be correct, and making these thrusters work provides significant evidence to that end.What strikes me here, as someone trained in down to earth engineering but also interested in fundamental research, is that what appears (from an average mainstream science educated person) we have people applying more of engineering methodology, trying to find some variants and to improve a useful device, while the "simple" experimental evidence for any effect at all (regardless of backing theories) is obscured by this apparently endless series of various devices/various experimental setups, to the point it seems utterly unable to convince mainstream scientists of the reality of a possible experimental positive result (regardless of backing mainstream theories). If dr Woodward et al are interested in a Nobel, my feeling (as an average mainstream science educated person somehow following the topic) is that the various teams involved in experiments are choosing the wrong methodology and should follow some guidelines for fundamental research experimentalists : please produce a complete detailed description of one single self contained airtight device, thermally isolated, energetically isolated, electromagnetically shielded, that is reproducible and will guarantee anyone caring to follow the instructions to observe a thrust/power effect better than 1/c for a few seconds : even if only a few % better than 1/c would be enough for a Nobel. If some theory did prove to be useful to reach the appropriate design then all the better for the Nobel, but theories can come later. So far my feeling is that the "propellantless propulsion proponents" are doing a really great job at NOT convincing an (admittedly already reluctant) mainstream science community that there is any effect at all. Maybe that is not their goal, maybe they prefer to nurture scepticism and keep working in their corner, with little funds and equipments and small teams, polishing a design to truly amaze us later with a whooping N/kW thruster for all to buy at RadioShack ? But it seems strange to me (and my guess to a majority of scientists and engineers), if effect is real then it is worth fundamental physics methodology, not necessarily billions $ but at least complete open access to blueprints, complete experimental datafiles (including preliminary adjustments and settings) and not just snapshots of a few screens (to be compensated for perspective! can't they dump the raw values of those instruments on some disk?) (and believe our word, this is just so typical a record it would be useless to show you the others...) scatterplots of hundreds of data points (on/off pulses) with varying parameters (positioning, frequency, power, time of the day, temperature and humidity in lab, with or without added ferromagnetic shielding here and there, with or without thermal shielding of the flex bearings...) to show correlations or absence of correlation...I understand the limited means for small teams small budgets, but the will to log and communicate every possible detail on a stable reference experiment is lacking. NDAs are a no go for fundamental science and a poor excuse considered what is at stakes : BSM physics. What are the general feeling in the proponents ranks about the lack of recognition by the mainstream community so far ? They just don't care ?Understand this is not an attack on persons, it is an attack on methodology. I have no secret agenda, I have no financial or professional interest in propellentless drives to fail to reach recognition, should they be possible at all. I do have an interest in scientific knowledge and good methodology, and communication to the general public.
...
I agree with what you are saying, but I think there seems to be an assumption that Eagleworks or Dr. Woodward have something that could be so easily reproduced that a complete description is all that is needed for someone else to reproduce it. As someone who is interested in seeing this line of research carried out, my perspective is that we are really just at the beginning, where the researchers have a hypothesis and are carrying out experiments to attempt to prove those hypotheses. In Eagleworks case they think they can push on the quantum vaccum and are carrying out tests according to their idea to see if it actually can be done. While Dr. Woodward believes it should be possible to temporarily shield some matter from the effects of all the matter in the universe in just such a way to be able to coax thrust out of it. Both ideas on their face are extraordinary. But thats all they are right now. It is my perspective that Eagle works is trying to get to the point that they can provide someone with a description that can be independently verify. They just dont have that right now. As for Woodward In his book the reason he has moved from his classical MET design to MLT and back to MET is because he was unable to get a consistent thrust signal after having his designs tested in more than one way.
I think that they are trying too hard to see something, and not hard enough to see nothing.
Progress in instrumentation is still important progress.
In 2012 a researcher attempting to characterize the Woodward effect, another proposed reactionless drive effect, has stated that she carefully designed her experiments to specifically exclude any "Dean drive" effects: the unintended interaction with the environment in, around or touching the apparatus. She considered these effects "spurious noise".