So...are you saying it's basically impossible to build an M/E device with a T/W >1?
Could the Mach effect be responsible for Tajmar's superconducting ring experimental results at AIT? His experiments produced gravitomagnetic effects that were far too large to be explained by Einstein's frame-dragging mechanism. He got his experimental results only when he accelerated or decelerated the rotating ring, not when the ring was at constant velocity. Could the "jerk" from the change in acceleration and deceleration be responsible for his results?
Quote from: kurt9 on 09/16/2010 06:44 pmCould the Mach effect be responsible for Tajmar's superconducting ring experimental results at AIT? His experiments produced gravitomagnetic effects that were far too large to be explained by Einstein's frame-dragging mechanism. He got his experimental results only when he accelerated or decelerated the rotating ring, not when the ring was at constant velocity. Could the "jerk" from the change in acceleration and deceleration be responsible for his results?Kurt9:Since tranisent Mach-effects can generate forces as large or larger than regular acceleration induced inertial effects, its possible that Martin is seeing an expression of the M-E in his epxeriments, though he would probably be reluctant to say so. Tajmar has been very skeptical of Woodward's M-E work to date, and until Jim W. or others can demonstrate tens of milli-Newton thrust levels in an M-E device that can only be attributable to the M-E, Martin has a right to be skeptical IMO.
Hmmm, apparently railguns (of the military blow-you-up-kind, not the built-in-my-backyard kind) are experiencing little to no recoil. This is being blamed on torque, being stored in the homopolar generator, but since a big railgun is one of the first places you'd expect mass fluctuations to show up experimentally, this may be significant...
Quote from: Lampyridae on 09/20/2010 07:09 amHmmm, apparently railguns (of the military blow-you-up-kind, not the built-in-my-backyard kind) are experiencing little to no recoil. This is being blamed on torque, being stored in the homopolar generator, but since a big railgun is one of the first places you'd expect mass fluctuations to show up experimentally, this may be significant...I am not aware of any railguns that move their capacitors back and forth in synch with their charge/discharge cycle.by the by, railguns do experience as much recoil as physical law says should be the reaction force to any action of a projectile. Those that say they don't don't know what they are talking about.
Quote from: mlorrey on 09/21/2010 05:55 pmQuote from: Lampyridae on 09/20/2010 07:09 amHmmm, apparently railguns (of the military blow-you-up-kind, not the built-in-my-backyard kind) are experiencing little to no recoil. This is being blamed on torque, being stored in the homopolar generator, but since a big railgun is one of the first places you'd expect mass fluctuations to show up experimentally, this may be significant...I am not aware of any railguns that move their capacitors back and forth in synch with their charge/discharge cycle.by the by, railguns do experience as much recoil as physical law says should be the reaction force to any action of a projectile. Those that say they don't don't know what they are talking about.Well I think the assumption was that the energy fluctuation took place in the projectile, hence lowering its mass (but this of course would raise the muzzle velocity). I'd expect something like an 8.999MJ recoil and 1m/s increase in projectile velocity. I'd better read all the emails before I say anything. What is clear though is that the *location* of the recoil is still not well understood (or maybe it is, and it's classified). There's also the magnetic forces wanting to rip the rails apart but that's a separate issue.
Quote from: Lampyridae on 09/22/2010 07:19 amQuote from: mlorrey on 09/21/2010 05:55 pmQuote from: Lampyridae on 09/20/2010 07:09 amHmmm, apparently railguns (of the military blow-you-up-kind, not the built-in-my-backyard kind) are experiencing little to no recoil. This is being blamed on torque, being stored in the homopolar generator, but since a big railgun is one of the first places you'd expect mass fluctuations to show up experimentally, this may be significant...I am not aware of any railguns that move their capacitors back and forth in synch with their charge/discharge cycle.by the by, railguns do experience as much recoil as physical law says should be the reaction force to any action of a projectile. Those that say they don't don't know what they are talking about.Well I think the assumption was that the energy fluctuation took place in the projectile, hence lowering its mass (but this of course would raise the muzzle velocity). I'd expect something like an 8.999MJ recoil and 1m/s increase in projectile velocity. I'd better read all the emails before I say anything. What is clear though is that the *location* of the recoil is still not well understood (or maybe it is, and it's classified). There's also the magnetic forces wanting to rip the rails apart but that's a separate issue.The paper I uploaded says the recoil is at the breach.For an unclassified example, back in the 1990's a friend of mine had this 15 foot tesla coil and capacitor bank he'd do lightning shows with. We used the capacitor bank for some other tricks, one of which involved powering a rail gun with rails a mere 2 inches long, using a half inch slug of 8 guage copper as the bullet. There clearly was recoil driving the rails back, as well as flux pressure pushing them out to the sides, our jury rigged rail gun, fixed in a vise, would explode pretty much every time we dumped the load of that cap bank through it, turning the copper bullet to liquid and plasma in a stream that could put a big hole in a concrete block wall.
Quote from: mlorrey on 09/23/2010 01:44 amQuote from: Lampyridae on 09/22/2010 07:19 amQuote from: mlorrey on 09/21/2010 05:55 pmQuote from: Lampyridae on 09/20/2010 07:09 amHmmm, apparently railguns (of the military blow-you-up-kind, not the built-in-my-backyard kind) are experiencing little to no recoil. This is being blamed on torque, being stored in the homopolar generator, but since a big railgun is one of the first places you'd expect mass fluctuations to show up experimentally, this may be significant...I am not aware of any railguns that move their capacitors back and forth in synch with their charge/discharge cycle.by the by, railguns do experience as much recoil as physical law says should be the reaction force to any action of a projectile. Those that say they don't don't know what they are talking about.Well I think the assumption was that the energy fluctuation took place in the projectile, hence lowering its mass (but this of course would raise the muzzle velocity). I'd expect something like an 8.999MJ recoil and 1m/s increase in projectile velocity. I'd better read all the emails before I say anything. What is clear though is that the *location* of the recoil is still not well understood (or maybe it is, and it's classified). There's also the magnetic forces wanting to rip the rails apart but that's a separate issue.The paper I uploaded says the recoil is at the breach.For an unclassified example, back in the 1990's a friend of mine had this 15 foot tesla coil and capacitor bank he'd do lightning shows with. We used the capacitor bank for some other tricks, one of which involved powering a rail gun with rails a mere 2 inches long, using a half inch slug of 8 guage copper as the bullet. There clearly was recoil driving the rails back, as well as flux pressure pushing them out to the sides, our jury rigged rail gun, fixed in a vise, would explode pretty much every time we dumped the load of that cap bank through it, turning the copper bullet to liquid and plasma in a stream that could put a big hole in a concrete block wall.Thank you for the paper but unfortunately I've a problem with downloading stuff from NSF, and PDFs in general. Seems to be a proxy issue.The one paper I've been able to find that touches on the subject rather deals with back-EMF as a result of the motion of the armature, and suggests that it winds up as elastic deformation of the rails. I wonder if any more research has been done in that regard?
Quote from: cuddihy on 05/13/2010 12:33 pmQuote from: mlorrey on 05/13/2010 02:06 amWoodward's latest paper pretty much demonstrates that general relativity itself depends on Mach's Principle to function. If Motl took the time to actually read it, he may change his mind.Which paper is that?An M-E paper that Jim W is still refining. Hopfully he will have it ready for publication in a few weeks.
Quote from: mlorrey on 05/13/2010 02:06 amWoodward's latest paper pretty much demonstrates that general relativity itself depends on Mach's Principle to function. If Motl took the time to actually read it, he may change his mind.Which paper is that?
Woodward's latest paper pretty much demonstrates that general relativity itself depends on Mach's Principle to function. If Motl took the time to actually read it, he may change his mind.
Could the ultracapacitors find some use in the M-E experimental work?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_double-layer_capacitor
Quote from: Sith on 10/29/2010 07:53 pmCould the ultracapacitors find some use in the M-E experimental work?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_double-layer_capacitorThey have relatively good energy density, but I have doubts about their frequency response. The Wikipedia article says that they "charge up in seconds" which is far too slow for an MLT.