Quote from: Star-Drive on 01/21/2018 04:22 pmQuote from: flux_capacitor on 01/21/2018 03:27 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 01/21/2018 03:08 pmAnd 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?
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 01/21/2018 03:27 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 01/21/2018 03:08 pmAnd 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.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 01/21/2018 03:08 pmAnd 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?
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.
Moving aside from the technical build discussions for a moment, is there any news on official progress with regards to MET? Based on the Estes Park presentations, it seemed that formal support and indisputable evidence for the existence of the effect has increased dramatically in recent times. Are there any major official efforts underway to scale up the results to useful levels in the near term? Or is it still "10 years away" as it has been for the last 15 years or so?
Many thanks for this complete answer Paul So, basically, Woodward's initial MLT design didn't allow capacitors to vibrate, hence he moved to the MET design with vibrating PZT discs and no EM coil. But at the cost of much lower frequency (acoustic).While your own 2004 MLT design luckily incorporated this fundamental feature.Do you know the reason why Woodward never moved over the years to a "new" MLT design based on your 2004 MLT, as it can work at much higher frequencies than METs? It's been 14 years…
Quote from: M.E.T. on 01/21/2018 07:41 pmMoving aside from the technical build discussions for a moment, is there any news on official progress with regards to MET? Based on the Estes Park presentations, it seemed that formal support and indisputable evidence for the existence of the effect has increased dramatically in recent times. Are there any major official efforts underway to scale up the results to useful levels in the near term? Or is it still "10 years away" as it has been for the last 15 years or so?This is what I am attempting. I have increased the disks from 19mm to 50mm, and the size of the massive end caps to nearly 1kg. I have also increased the available power from about 100W to over 400Wpk. However, I don't have a thrust balance. I just finished hanging a rotating test rig, suspended by a barrel swivel, S.S. leader line (AKA fishing tackle). It seems to work. I gave it a small push and it made several revolutions over about 10 minutes. I closed the windows to eliminate the drafts and it stabilized. Then it sat there practically motionless. However, when I stretch the cables to the amplifier, they're causing some torque. I took a break for a 2nd cup of coffee to consider what to do about it.
I was pondering coupling power transfer via a capacitance inductive coupling. I attached an image below. Never played with one before so its just a guess it should work. Might cause some physical vibration but I am guessing fishing line might damp it?
Not sure this is a good idea because it might change the downward force of the apparatus via the voltage on the capacitor. For a torque this could change how far it would turn.
Wondering what you would use to generate your test force to rotate the pendulum for calibration.Oh a swivel. So it isn't a pendulum?I am assuming two opposing MET's. One run at the proper phase relationship and the other ran in a null configuration?Other problems might be transfer of data from the M.E.T.'s to equipment.
another thought this morning was a galinstan contact through the center below to convey power. Multiple channels might be possible.Multiple capacitor rings might achieve a similar effect of multiple channels of galinstan
Quote from: dustinthewind on 01/23/2018 12:28 amI was pondering coupling power transfer via a capacitance inductive coupling. I attached an image below. Never played with one before so its just a guess it should work. Might cause some physical vibration but I am guessing fishing line might damp it? How will you make the top plate freely rotatable? How will you hang the weight of the apparatus? Note that there is no mechanical connection between the upper plate and the lower plate to bear weight. These details need to be figured out.QuoteNot sure this is a good idea because it might change the downward force of the apparatus via the voltage on the capacitor. For a torque this could change how far it would turn. No. The electrical force between the two plates is internal force. It will not change the downward force (in the upper fishing line).QuoteWondering what you would use to generate your test force to rotate the pendulum for calibration.Oh a swivel. So it isn't a pendulum?I am assuming two opposing MET's. One run at the proper phase relationship and the other ran in a null configuration?Other problems might be transfer of data from the M.E.T.'s to equipment. This is not a problem. A wireless connection (wifi, bluetooth, etc) will make it.Quoteanother thought this morning was a galinstan contact through the center below to convey power. Multiple channels might be possible.Multiple capacitor rings might achieve a similar effect of multiple channels of galinstanEW at NASA used this in their earlier (2014) experiment. Rfmwguy used this in his earlier configuration. He abandoned it because of the hard-to-control surface tension problem.
Your workshop slides confuse me completely. The conclusion is, at least for a layman like myself complete strange. Is a woodward-drive (MEGA-Drive) possible after all or not? From the slides with all the negativity I would conclude that a MEGA-Drive is not possible, but I'm not sure.
"Propellant-less Space Propulsion from a Gravitational Effect Sourced by Energy Fluctuations."https://www.youtube.com/c/SSISpaceStudiesInstitute