### Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 308565 times)

#### WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1339
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1386
• Likes Given: 1836
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1240 on: 01/10/2018 04:33 AM »
I am not sure this will help but I noticed your signal looked very similar to the displacement signal I was supposing might contribute to the mach effect.  I circled the signal in red and it is the purple signal.

In the image of my plot (blue displacement signal) I added in the original signal but I have found if you modify the 2nd and successive signal terms, (here I use 5 signals) it amplifies displacement/acceleration at the top, and minimize deceleration/displacement below.  Successive terms seem to approach max 2 top and 1/2 bottom.  Probably some other series that would accomplish even more drastic effects.

The red plot is of a simple sin wave.

Not really sure how useful this will be as it seems you suggest the material is responsible for the 2nd wave introduced via electrostriction.  Isn't maximizing electrostriction in a material maximizing its expansion on application of an electric field?  So the objective is to maximize displacement per applied electric field?  Am I wrong in suspecting the heavier mass provides an anchor mass that is less accelerated while the other mass is more accelerated?  The more accelerated (aluminum) mass takes the brunt of the effect of asymmetric acceleration providing the actual mach effect?

What would happen if you just introduced your own mix of frequencies for physical displacement via each individual disk (5 disks 5 separate frequencies).   - would you be combating the electrostriction effect or would there be a way to make it work?

with each signal being out of phase pi/2 or 90 degrees it some how seems familiar to a phased array but I don't quite see how.

Your waveform is very interesting. That looks like the ideal "output" displacement, but I don't know that this is what we will get for output if that waveform was used as the input. In my oscillogram, the yellow trace is the input current. You can see the sinewave is collapsing at the top because my amplifier + transformer are maxed out. I have some heavier wire and a current sensor coming next week so I can maximize the power to the MEGA. In the end, I hope to apply nearly 800W of power.

You are correct, that the material is providing the 2nd harmonic. The electrostriction is depending on the electric field squared, E2, where the piezoelectric effect only depends on E. This makes the response of the PZT disk asymmetrical, as required for the Mach effect. The material is not going to provide all those other harmonics you are using.

Your other ideas are correct. The mass difference makes lightweight side dissipate more power. Power flow is asymmetrical.

IMO, applying multiple frequencies to multiple stacks probably has some advantages. The electrostriction effect seems to go away when it gets hot.
If I understand your correctly, you tried 2 methods.

method 1 is you apply a single sinusoidal voltage to the entire stack and the electrostriction provides the 2nd harmonic but you are encountering rapid heating which destroys the phase of the 2nd harmonic.

method 2 or (4.) is you ignore the overheating of the electrostriction effect (let it heat up - go out of phase) and directly put in the 2 harmonic to force at 2f so that it has the desired displacement wave form, regardless of over heating.

If this is true then when you get your 2nd frequency just right with the phase adjustment signal at 2f, if you introduce a 3rd harmonic frequency at about 3*f where f is the original frequency then the stack might provide the 4th frequency at 6f also?  (not sure this would work.)  might need a 4th signal at 6f to adjust the phase also.

Correct, but I only have a 2 channel waveform generator, and as I'm working on my own portable driver circuit, having 2 channels is difficult enough. I suppose if someone knows how to program a DSP with multiple PWM's, it could be done with software. It's in the back of my mind as the next evolution.

#### dustinthewind

• Full Member
• Posts: 629
• U.S. of A.
• Liked: 250
• Likes Given: 277
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1241 on: 01/13/2018 06:09 AM »
I guess if you wanted to, you could inject 2 signals sin(x+phi) and +1/4*sin(3*(x-%pi/3+phi)) where x = w*t .  The material should generate 2*w and 6*w.  It would only work for as long as the material didn't over heat.  I attached an image below of the resulting displacement (not sure of the exact material response).  The input signal is below that.  phi=%pi/2 in the plots - not shown.

One possibility I was considering was signal mixers where you add say 20khz and 40khz and get 60.  Then add 60 and 20 to get 80 ect but that may be overly complicated with dividers filters and amplifiers ect.  Multipliers possibly?

I found a paper "Experimental Setup for a DSP Based Single-Phase PWM Inverter" Mehmet TÜMAY K.Çağatay BAYINDIR Mehmet Uğraş CUMA Ahmet TEKE
I don't have much experience with them at the moment.  I keep thinking there is probably some simple software out there for programming in complicated wave functions for a DSP.

Maybe this is one of them? https://sourceforge.net/projects/dsp-lab/?source=directory
« Last Edit: 01/13/2018 06:18 AM by dustinthewind »

#### francesco nicoli

• Full Member
• Posts: 496
• Amsterdam
• Liked: 231
• Likes Given: 338
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1242 on: 01/14/2018 02:31 PM »
not sure whether this is the relevant forum, but Zubrin posted this today, which I believe has possible implications for warp-drive designs et similia.

#### WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1339
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1386
• Likes Given: 1836
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1243 on: 01/14/2018 04:35 PM »
I just finished winding the 2 transformers. The resistors have arrived and the project box will be here tomorrow. The shielded cable will be here mid week. I also ordered 10 more disks. (\$\$) so I can build up the 2nd MEGA to match. I hope to start building the rotary test rig next weekend.

Here is the test setup. The amplifier is powered by an AC/DC power supply but can also be operated from a car battery.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2018 04:35 PM by WarpTech »

#### ThinkerX

• Full Member
• Posts: 317
• Liked: 122
• Likes Given: 60
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1244 on: 01/15/2018 01:25 AM »
Warp Tech -

Just trying to keep things straight here.  With your test device, what readings would validate or falsify your current theory?

#### WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1339
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1386
• Likes Given: 1836
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1245 on: 01/15/2018 04:34 AM »
Warp Tech -

Just trying to keep things straight here.  With your test device, what readings would validate or falsify your current theory?

Good question, since there are multiple models that could produce thrust for different reasons.

1. The 2nd time derivative v2 with electrostriction at 2*w, results in Larmor radiation and Radiation Reaction responses. Direction will depend on frequency, the natural resonances of the stack and which direction has the maximum rate of acceleration. My guess is, there will be "peak" thrust a little better than a photon rocket, but it should disappear if I put it inside a grounded Faraday cage. It will also be very sensitive to the temperature of the stack.

2. The 2nd time derivative of v2 but using 2 AC sources at w and 2*w. The results should be the same, but now the direction can be reversed by inverting the phase of either source. I expect this to be a bit more stable with temperature, it has the ability to be regulated by a DSP and could work at higher frequencies than the natural resonance allows.

3. The 1st space derivate of v2 results in a gradient in the power and kinetic energy across the stack. The light-weight end vibrates much faster than the heavy end. If this results in any thrust, it would be much greater than a photon rocket and would work while shielded by a grounded Faraday cage. The direction would not be reversible because the gradient would always be in the same direction.

The first 2 validate QED, not my theory. This is textbook stuff. The 3rd would be surprising.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2018 04:38 AM by WarpTech »

#### ThinkerX

• Full Member
• Posts: 317
• Liked: 122
• Likes Given: 60
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1246 on: 01/15/2018 05:00 AM »
Again, seeking clarity here:

Quote
3. The 1st space derivate of v2 results in a gradient in the power and kinetic energy across the stack. The light-weight end vibrates much faster than the heavy end. If this results in any thrust, it would be much greater than a photon rocket and would work while shielded by a grounded Faraday cage. The direction would not be reversible because the gradient would always be in the same direction.

The first 2 validate QED, not my theory. This is textbook stuff. The 3rd would be surprising.

How surprising?  Could it be shoehorned into existing physics with trivial adjustments?

Or does this imply CoE or CoM issues? Or other significant physics issues?

#### WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1339
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1386
• Likes Given: 1836
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1247 on: 01/15/2018 05:44 PM »
Again, seeking clarity here:

Quote
3. The 1st space derivate of v2 results in a gradient in the power and kinetic energy across the stack. The light-weight end vibrates much faster than the heavy end. If this results in any thrust, it would be much greater than a photon rocket and would work while shielded by a grounded Faraday cage. The direction would not be reversible because the gradient would always be in the same direction.

The first 2 validate QED, not my theory. This is textbook stuff. The 3rd would be surprising.

How surprising?  Could it be shoehorned into existing physics with trivial adjustments?

Or does this imply CoE or CoM issues? Or other significant physics issues?

In a gravitational field, from the perspective of a distant observer. As objects fall toward the ground they are losing energy to the environment. The oscillator frequency is red shifted, as are the photons it emits. The probability of losing energy is greater in the "down" direction, and input of energy is required to make it move "up" in a gravity well.

The stack however has a gradient "internal" to it. It's not relative to some external planet. The energy content of the stack does not depend on its coordinate location. It's not losing more energy moving in one direction relative to any other direction. There is no exhaust of momentum when considering only the space gradient derivative, so it doesn't obey CoM. IMO just having an internal gradient is not enough to make it move due to gravity, therefore it would be surprising if it did.

#### X_RaY

• Full Member
• Posts: 780
• Germany
• Liked: 1001
• Likes Given: 2211
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1248 on: 01/15/2018 08:02 PM »
I just finished winding the 2 transformers. The resistors have arrived and the project box will be here tomorrow. The shielded cable will be here mid week. I also ordered 10 more disks. (\$\$) so I can build up the 2nd MEGA to match. I hope to start building the rotary test rig next weekend.

Here is the test setup. The amplifier is powered by an AC/DC power supply but can also be operated from a car battery.

Hi Todd,

i am a little skeptical about the 43 KHz driven by a car hifi amplifier.  These circuits are optimized for low frequencies and may contain filters with cut off frequencies around 20 KHz or even lower. Did you measure the peak to peak voltage and /or power at that frequency?
Did you modify the anplifier to get good power levels for over 40 KHz?

Just another question: The two resistors(? / or choke?) labeled as "10mΩ, 5W", what does the "m" stands for milli or Mega?
« Last Edit: 01/15/2018 08:27 PM by X_RaY »

#### WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1339
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1386
• Likes Given: 1836
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1249 on: 01/15/2018 08:41 PM »
I just finished winding the 2 transformers. The resistors have arrived and the project box will be here tomorrow. The shielded cable will be here mid week. I also ordered 10 more disks. (\$\$) so I can build up the 2nd MEGA to match. I hope to start building the rotary test rig next weekend.

Here is the test setup. The amplifier is powered by an AC/DC power supply but can also be operated from a car battery.

Hi Todd,

i am a little skeptical about the 43 KHz driven by a car hifi amplifier.  These circuits are optimized for low frequencies and may contain filters with cut off frequencies around 20 KHz or even lower. Did you measure the peak to peak voltage and /or power at that frequency?
Did you modify the anplifier to get good power levels for over 40 KHz?

Just another question: The two resistors(? / or choke?) labeled as "10mΩ, 5W", what does the "m" stands for milli or Mega?

The amplifier doesn't put out full power, but it's over 75% at 43kHz, unloaded. It actually works much better than I expected it would. Mathematically, the 2nd harmonic only has to be driven at an amplitude of 25% of the 1st harmonic in order to achieve the desired waveform. My step-up transformers boost the amplitude to 200Vpk at 21.5kHz, unloaded.

The resistors are 10 milliohms, and are 1% tolerance, so I can use them to monitor the current and get accurate calculations of the power and VA. Eventually, I will remove the 2 disks used to monitor the stack, and just go by the current waveform to know when it's tuned properly.

The enclosure arrived today. I'm waiting on the shielded cable so I can wire it all up, nice and neat. I thought I had some vector board, but it looks like that's next on my shopping list.
« Last Edit: 01/15/2018 08:41 PM by WarpTech »

#### Monomorphic

• Full Member
• Posts: 1204
• United States
• Liked: 3258
• Likes Given: 1083
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1250 on: 01/15/2018 08:46 PM »
i am a little skeptical about the 43 KHz driven by a car hifi amplifier.  These circuits are optimized for low frequencies and may contain filters with cut off frequencies around 20 KHz or even lower. Did you measure the peak to peak voltage and /or power at that frequency?
Did you modify the anplifier to get good power levels for over 40 KHz?

I've seen ultrasonic speakers (40kHz) driven by a standard hifi amplifier. All modern audio amplifiers will have a flat frequency response over the audio range from 20Hz to 20kHz, but there are also many higher frequency harmonics in the signal that must be preserved so as not to introduce distortion.  These high frequency harmonics are present up to 10Mhz. At 43kHz, there will probably be less gain, but I doubt the hifi amplifier sharply cuts off the high frequencies at 20kHz.

All that said, the voltage level from hifi amplifiers is way too low for the impedance of the piezo stack. If 1A output current is sufficient, I would buy the MX200 high performance piezo driver listed here. It can still be powered using two 12V or one 24V lipo battery.  Simply remove the fan and add a large heat sink: https://www.piezodrive.com/modules/
« Last Edit: 01/15/2018 08:47 PM by Monomorphic »

#### WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1339
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1386
• Likes Given: 1836
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1251 on: 01/15/2018 09:39 PM »
i am a little skeptical about the 43 KHz driven by a car hifi amplifier.  These circuits are optimized for low frequencies and may contain filters with cut off frequencies around 20 KHz or even lower. Did you measure the peak to peak voltage and /or power at that frequency?
Did you modify the anplifier to get good power levels for over 40 KHz?

I've seen ultrasonic speakers (40kHz) driven by a standard hifi amplifier. All modern audio amplifiers will have a flat frequency response over the audio range from 20Hz to 20kHz, but there are also many higher frequency harmonics in the signal that must be preserved so as not to introduce distortion.  These high frequency harmonics are present up to 10Mhz. At 43kHz, there will probably be less gain, but I doubt the hifi amplifier sharply cuts off the high frequencies at 20kHz.

All that said, the voltage level from hifi amplifiers is way too low for the impedance of the piezo stack. If 1A output current is sufficient, I would buy the MX200 high performance piezo driver listed here. It can still be powered using two 12V or one 24V lipo battery.  Simply remove the fan and add a large heat sink: https://www.piezodrive.com/modules/

These are pricey! The wire I used to wind the XFMR's was about \$10 on Amazon. The cores and bobbins were free samples from Ferroxcube and Cosmo Corp. It only takes about half an hour to wind both of them. You may not feel comfortable with doing this, but I've done it hundreds of times. As a lab technician, I often wound much larger transformers by hand where I had to be precise in order to make every last turn fit on the bobbin. With the 22 Awg wire I used, it didn't require that much precision so winding went quickly.

Core: P36-22
Bobbin: 2035-0
Amplifier: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004S50ZNA/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
#22 Wire: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00L5IVS8E/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
#18 Wire: https://www.amazon.com/Remington-Industries-18H200P-5-Enameled-Diameter/dp/B00L5IU79A/ref=sr_1_8?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1516056163&sr=1-8&keywords=%2318+Magnet+wire
« Last Edit: 01/15/2018 09:43 PM by WarpTech »

#### Bob Woods

• Full Member
• Posts: 251
• Salem, Oregon USA
• Liked: 354
• Likes Given: 1091
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1252 on: 01/16/2018 10:53 PM »

I've seen ultrasonic speakers (40kHz) driven by a standard hifi amplifier. All modern audio amplifiers will have a flat frequency response over the audio range from 20Hz to 20kHz, but there are also many higher frequency harmonics in the signal that must be preserved so as not to introduce distortion.
Remembering back to my college days doing rock concerts, power amplifiers were broad-range across a very wide spectrum, 200K+ hz at the top, and it was the pre-amp stage that was used to regulate the bandwidth before it hit the power amp to avoid distortions. But that was over 40 years ago...

#### WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1339
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1386
• Likes Given: 1836
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1253 on: Today at 03:16 AM »
I now have two MEGA's again. Both have two stacks of 4 disks, and 1 stack of 2 disks to monitor the displacement. I have cleaned them up and attached 4-wire 22AWG "shielded" cables to each, so there should be no Lorentz forces on the wires once everything is grounded.

GRN - Common Source / Ground
BLK - Bottom 4 stack - Channel 1
RED - Middle 4 stack - Channel 2
WHT - Top 2 stack / Feedback

I'm setting up an hanging rotary test rig next. For now, I'm not going to put the MEGA's in a box. I want to see if there is thrust in "air" without blocking the exhaust photons from the output. Putting it in the box is part of the test to see if the thrust is affected, so start simple.

The resistors shown are the .01 Ohm current sense resistors. I can monitor the current on each channel this way. I will be mounting the XFMR's and Resistors to this Vector board as soon as I get some board-to-cable connectors.
« Last Edit: Today at 03:16 AM by WarpTech »

#### Star-Drive

• Member
• Full Member
• Posts: 833
• TX/USA
• Liked: 884
• Likes Given: 9
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1254 on: Today at 03:08 PM »
I now have two MEGA's again. Both have two stacks of 4 disks, and 1 stack of 2 disks to monitor the displacement. I have cleaned them up and attached 4-wire 22AWG "shielded" cables to each, so there should be no Lorentz forces on the wires once everything is grounded.

GRN - Common Source / Ground
BLK - Bottom 4 stack - Channel 1
RED - Middle 4 stack - Channel 2
WHT - Top 2 stack / Feedback

I'm setting up an hanging rotary test rig next. For now, I'm not going to put the MEGA's in a box. I want to see if there is thrust in "air" without blocking the exhaust photons from the output. Putting it in the box is part of the test to see if the thrust is affected, so start simple.

The resistors shown are the .01 Ohm current sense resistors. I can monitor the current on each channel this way. I will be mounting the XFMR's and Resistors to this Vector board as soon as I get some board-to-cable connectors.

Todd:

How are you controlling the phase of the 1w and 2w acoustic sine-wave signals being driven in your PZT stacks?  IMO Jim Woodward's lack of dramatic performance from his MEGA-drives rests squarely in not being able to adequately control AND maintain the required acoustical phase relationship between these two acoustic signals in the stacks, where maximum thrust occurs at 90-degrees phase shift and zero thrust occurs at 0-degree phase shift.  Jim's ex-graduate student, Tom Mahood and Woodward as well have already explored this 2-acoustic signal, phase control in PZT stacks problem, see attached papers.  I also summed it up in my STAIF-2004 paper as follows:

"Another issue though with Woodward’s PZT test articles was that they were very difficult to keep operating and garnering successful data runs. After searching for a number of explanations for why these PZT based stacks were so difficult to use, Woodward and his colleagues found that the most probable cause for their erratic behavior was due to the use of piezoelectric crystals with “ageing” memory characteristics and relying on ultrasonic pressure waves to force rectify the W-E mass fluctuations and/or reductions into a uni-direction force or weight reduction.  The transient mass fluctuations propagate through the PZT stack crystals at some substantial percentage of the speed of light in lockstep with the applied E-field, while the ultrasonic force rectification waves are traveling through the PZT crystals at the speed of sound through that same material, which are some 5 orders of magnitude slower than the applied E-field. These very large velocity differentials between the E-field driven transient mass fluctuations and the much slower ultrasonic standing waves propagating back and forth in the PZT crystal stack structure, generated large variations in the phase relationship between these two signals."

And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

#### WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1339
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1386
• Likes Given: 1836
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1255 on: Today at 03:22 PM »

Todd:

How are you controlling the phase of the 1w and 2w acoustic sine-wave signals being driven in your PZT stacks?  IMO Jim Woodward's lack of dramatic performance from his MEGA-drives rests squarely in not being able to adequately control AND maintain the required acoustical phase relationship between these two acoustic signals in the stacks, where maximum thrust occurs at 90-degrees phase shift and zero thrust occurs at 0-degree phase shift.  Jim's ex-graduate student, Tom Mahood and Woodward as well have already explored this 2-acoustic signal, phase control in PZT stacks problem, see attached papers.  I also summed it up in my STAIF-2004 paper as follows:

"Another issue though with Woodward’s PZT test articles was that they were very difficult to keep operating and garnering successful data runs. After searching for a number of explanations for why these PZT based stacks were so difficult to use, Woodward and his colleagues found that the most probable cause for their erratic behavior was due to the use of piezoelectric crystals with “ageing” memory characteristics and relying on ultrasonic pressure waves to force rectify the W-E mass fluctuations and/or reductions into a uni-direction force or weight reduction.  The transient mass fluctuations propagate through the PZT stack crystals at some substantial percentage of the speed of light in lockstep with the applied E-field, while the ultrasonic force rectification waves are traveling through the PZT crystals at the speed of sound through that same material, which are some 5 orders of magnitude slower than the applied E-field. These very large velocity differentials between the E-field driven transient mass fluctuations and the much slower ultrasonic standing waves propagating back and forth in the PZT crystal stack structure, generated large variations in the phase relationship between these two signals."

And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.

At the moment, I do not have a control circuit yet. My original idea will not work because the inductance of the PZT stack is almost non-existant. The energy does not circulate without an external inductor.

For my current tests, I have the 2 channel waveform generator. I have two ways to configure this for the test rig.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1470425;image
1. Each MEGA is driven at a single frequency. Channel 1 powers MEGA 1 and channel 2 powers MEGA 2. For this, I rely on the electrostriction to provide the 2nd harmonic. I can monitor the waveform using the displacement of the 2-disk stack.

2. I can power one 4 disk stack with channel 1 at w, and the 2nd 4 disk stack with channel 2 at 2w. From what I've seen, this does not drift out of range as fast as the electrostriction. It appears to be controlled by adjusting the phase of one of the generators. I will do this manually as I observe the feedback. The benefit of resonance is that the phase difference is zero, but with two generators I can get the right waveform at any frequency.

Regarding the 90-deg phase shift. This I think is an error in the mathematics description. The scalar "power" is radiated in both directions but is always positive. The 90-deg phase difference makes it appear that the force is also rectified, but that is the wrong conclusion. The two must be in-phase so that radiation is rectified. The force will then be uni-directional.

I'll review the papers you attached.

Thanks!
« Last Edit: Today at 03:23 PM by WarpTech »

#### flux_capacitor

• Full Member
• Posts: 567
• France
• Liked: 679
• Likes Given: 931
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1256 on: Today at 03:27 PM »
And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.

Paul, Regarding the MLT design, what do you personally think of Buldrini's (and now Woodward's) "bulk acceleration conjecture" referenced in this earlier post?

#### Star-Drive

• Member
• Full Member
• Posts: 833
• TX/USA
• Liked: 884
• Likes Given: 9
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1257 on: Today at 04:22 PM »
And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.

Paul, Regarding the MLT design, what do you personally think of Buldrini's (and now Woodward's) "bulk acceleration conjecture" referenced in this earlier post?

Flux Capacitor:

IMO, the a^2 Bulk Acceleration conjecture by Nembo Buldrini in 2008 and later codified by Woodward and Fearn in 2010 and 2012, see attached papers, is the key requirement to making the Mach Effect work in these gravity/inertia (G/I) thrusters. That is because this bulk acceleration a^2 term multiplies all the other thrust generation variables in the M-E thrust equation.  No bulk acceleration of the energy storing dielectric, no mass or vacuum density fluctuations from the M-E should be observed.

BTW, while re-reading Woodard's LS2_Woodward paper, I found it amusing that in the same 2010 paper that Jim codified and made explicit the Mach-Effect's a^2 bulk acceleration requirement, that Jim, while shooting down the reality of the "quantum Vacuum" in QED, also allowed that the QED quantum vacuum would permit vacuum fluctuations in the Dirac electron/positron semi-virtual pair sea to exist, see pages 3&4 in the attached LS2_Woodward paper and the below excerpt from same.  This is the very premise that Dr. Woodward then turned around to say, no that can't be, when he was trying to shoot down Sonny White's QV conjecture that is explicitly based on the reality of the Dirac e/p pair quantum vacuum sea.

"There is an even more fundamental problem here. As Milonni (1993; and refs. therein) and others showed about forty years ago, quantum electrodynamics does not – on the basis of the Casimir effect at least – demand that the quantum vacuum be filled with anything at all. That is, quantum electrodynamics can be consistently interpreted as without any zero point vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field at all. (The argument, however, does not include vacuum fluctuations of the electron field, that is, the creation and annihilation ex nihilo of virtual electron-positron pairs in the vacuum.) In this view, the Casimir force is a result of direct interactions between the particles in the plates, so one can still claim that there is an effective negative energy density in the space separating the plates. But there are no vacuum fluctuations with independent degrees of freedom between the plates. Aficionados of zero point energy and fields are not enamored of this fact. The cautionary message of all this is that one should be very careful when asserting that nothing is really something, and that the something nothing is the solution to all of our technical problems."

Star-Drive

#### dustinthewind

• Full Member
• Posts: 629
• U.S. of A.
• Liked: 250
• Likes Given: 277
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1258 on: Today at 04:35 PM »

Todd:

How are you controlling the phase of the 1w and 2w acoustic sine-wave signals being driven in your PZT stacks?  IMO Jim Woodward's lack of dramatic performance from his MEGA-drives rests squarely in not being able to adequately control AND maintain the required acoustical phase relationship between these two acoustic signals in the stacks, where maximum thrust occurs at 90-degrees phase shift and zero thrust occurs at 0-degree phase shift.  Jim's ex-graduate student, Tom Mahood and Woodward as well have already explored this 2-acoustic signal, phase control in PZT stacks problem, see attached papers.  I also summed it up in my STAIF-2004 paper as follows:

"Another issue though with Woodward’s PZT test articles was that they were very difficult to keep operating and garnering successful data runs. After searching for a number of explanations for why these PZT based stacks were so difficult to use, Woodward and his colleagues found that the most probable cause for their erratic behavior was due to the use of piezoelectric crystals with “ageing” memory characteristics and relying on ultrasonic pressure waves to force rectify the W-E mass fluctuations and/or reductions into a uni-direction force or weight reduction.  The transient mass fluctuations propagate through the PZT stack crystals at some substantial percentage of the speed of light in lockstep with the applied E-field, while the ultrasonic force rectification waves are traveling through the PZT crystals at the speed of sound through that same material, which are some 5 orders of magnitude slower than the applied E-field. These very large velocity differentials between the E-field driven transient mass fluctuations and the much slower ultrasonic standing waves propagating back and forth in the PZT crystal stack structure, generated large variations in the phase relationship between these two signals."

And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.

At the moment, I do not have a control circuit yet. My original idea will not work because the inductance of the PZT stack is almost non-existant. The energy does not circulate without an external inductor.

For my current tests, I have the 2 channel waveform generator. I have two ways to configure this for the test rig.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1470425;image
1. Each MEGA is driven at a single frequency. Channel 1 powers MEGA 1 and channel 2 powers MEGA 2. For this, I rely on the electrostriction to provide the 2nd harmonic. I can monitor the waveform using the displacement of the 2-disk stack.

2. I can power one 4 disk stack with channel 1 at w, and the 2nd 4 disk stack with channel 2 at 2w. From what I've seen, this does not drift out of range as fast as the electrostriction. It appears to be controlled by adjusting the phase of one of the generators. I will do this manually as I observe the feedback. The benefit of resonance is that the phase difference is zero, but with two generators I can get the right waveform at any frequency.

Regarding the 90-deg phase shift. This I think is an error in the mathematics description. The scalar "power" is radiated in both directions but is always positive. The 90-deg phase difference makes it appear that the force is also rectified, but that is the wrong conclusion. The two must be in-phase so that radiation is rectified. The force will then be uni-directional.

I'll review the papers you attached.

Thanks!

Again this totally reminds me of a phased array in that for a phased array to work properly you need not only control of one antenna but two antennas.  Naturally with out it one will drift out of phase.  Of course we are talking about adding in harmonics here which is a bit different.

The 90 degree phase shift can be interpreted as such via an external observer observing the external currents but in actuality when the signal arrives the current moves in phase 0deg with the arriving electric field for radiation traveling in one direction and 180 out of phase for radiation moving in the other direction.  2 different velocities in the material does make things complicated.

I don't see how radiation could be involved however at khz frequencies as quarter wavelength spacing would be massive unless dielectric slowing of the signals could match that.  Not sure how the acoustic phased array would pan out.

I guess I remain sceptical about a phased array analogy but it is tempting to try and analyze it as such.

#### flux_capacitor

• Full Member
• Posts: 567
• France
• Liked: 679
• Likes Given: 931
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1259 on: Today at 05:00 PM »
And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.

Paul, Regarding the MLT design, what do you personally think of Buldrini's (and now Woodward's) "bulk acceleration conjecture" referenced in this earlier post?

Flux Capacitor:

IMO, the a^2 Bulk Acceleration conjecture by Nembo Buldrini in 2008 and later codified by Woodward and Fearn in 2010 and 2012, see attached papers, is the key requirement to making the Mach Effect work in these gravity/inertia (G/I) thrusters. That is because this bulk acceleration a^2 term multiplies all the other thrust generation variables in the M-E thrust equation.  No bulk acceleration of the energy storing dielectric, no mass or vacuum density fluctuations from the M-E should be observed.

As you do agree with this conjecture, even saying it is "the key requirement to making the Mach Effect work in these gravity/inertia (G/I) thrusters" then what about the bulk acceleration of the capacitor in an MLT?

It is my understanding that in a MET (MEGA drive) using vibrating PZT discs, the capacitors themselves (i.e. the whole material they are made of) undergo a proper acceleration, achieving a "bulk" acceleration.

Whereas in an MLT device (which is based on Lorentz forces acting on electric charges due to crossed E×B fields, the B-field being produced by an electromagnetic coil) capacitors remain fixed, only free electrons and some mobile ions inside the lattice are being accelerated. The main atomic structure of the capacitor does not accelerate in an MLT. For this reason, it seems to me that unlike a MET, an MLT does not meet the requirements to achieve the bulk acceleration conjecture. What do you think?
« Last Edit: Today at 05:20 PM by flux_capacitor »