Cel, you're bringing up an issue familiar to all on the Woodward mailing list though from a new standpoint. The issue really is, how can there be so much mass fluctuation? The energy equivalent is enormous. So you know, you only calculated a 700% fluctuation. Paul March's current MLT build is designed around a 3,000,000% fluctuation.So maybe the math isn't as simple as it seems to you? The fact that mass can be fluctuated AT ALL is the real issue. . .the one you haven't grappled with yet.

C:As GI-Thruster has already noted, using E=m*c^2 in the way you’ve done to gage the energy flux during an inertial mass fluctuation is correct from one point of view, but it’s not the appropriate way to view this G/I mass fluctuation phenomenon, for it misses the whole point of Sciama’s and Woodward’s view on the origins of inertia. In their conjectures, derivations, and Woodward’s data, the origins of inertial mass, when looking at a local mass in the laboratory frame of reference, is being due to the local mass’ gravity/inertial (G/I) field interactions. A G/I field created by all the rest of the mass/energy contained in the causally connected universe. In this conjecture, if we were in a universe with only one local chunk of mass, it would have almost no inertial mass properties since there would be very little G/I field interactions to impede its acceleration.Sciama and Woodward models this G/I interaction of the accelerated mass with a universal G/I field as a transient disturbance in the G/I field around the accelerated mass, which transiently shields the mass from its G/I field energy source, which in turn reduces the effective inertial mass of the locally accelerated mass as long as that disturbance in the G/I field exists close by the mass in question. However, since this G/I disturbance propagates spherically away from the local mass at the speed of light, this single transient mass fluctuation event of the local mss does not last very long, and that is why any quasi-steady state G/I thruster has to use an alternating current (ac) excitation to keep producing these transient G/I shielding events around the G/I thruster mass in question.If you have more questions, I advise that you read through Dr. Woodward’s CSUF entry on gravitation and the origins of inertia that can be found at this URL by clicking on the Gravitation topic in his Research Interests:http://physics.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html

Woodward's conjecture does NOT create mass from nothing.

His conjecture states that the APPARENT inertial mass of a local mass can be transiently REDUCED by shielding it from the universal G/I field that give rise to the property we call inertia.

This G/I field shielding effect is proportional to the local mass’ applied acceleration times the double derivative of the energy flux passing through the cap dielectric mass in question, so by definition it is a transient shielding effect in real systems.

As to why this mass fluctuation effect doesn't show up in everyday devices, it’s simply due to the fact that these transient mass fluctuations almost always time average to zero over one excitation period such as in the sine waves used in RF transmitters.

The only way one could see a net thrust from such a device is if a third force is applied to the mass fluctuating dielectric mass in a push-heavy, pull-light force rectification process that has to be timed precisely with these time varying mass fluctuations or you end up with zip net forces.

Now, if you don’t like my “jargonistic” description of this M-E effect, which is my good faith effort to convey these ideas to folks who aren’t familiar with same, then all I can recommend to you now is to look up Woodward’s URL on this topic and the many other related physics papers in peer reviewed journals if you want to see and understand all the gory mathematical details contained in their derivations, and the experimental data backing them up.

However, be prepared to spend several years in the process as I have done.

Quote from: mlorrey on 03/16/2009 09:08 AMPlease explain how these gees translate. This is obviously gross gees at some point in the cycle, not net thrust between opposing positive and negative thrusts.They are the radial bulk acceleration centripetal gees (9.81 m/sec^2) at the radius of the cap-ring when spun at the noted revolutions per second rotation rate. You can calculate them from the known radius r = 0.056 meters of the cap-ring asssembly and the centripetal acceleration equation A= (tangential velocity)^2 / radius r.

Please explain how these gees translate. This is obviously gross gees at some point in the cycle, not net thrust between opposing positive and negative thrusts.

4. Note the subject of this thread, "Propellantless Field Propulsion and application". Communication that can broadcast without much attenuation through the Earth at the speed of light could be a big money application of this technology. It'd greatly reduce the development cost of the propulsion application, if it exists, by creating a large market of off-the-shelf, relatively cheap components that should be able to generate reasonable levels of thrust.

3. General relativity and electromagnetism. They would predict a slightly higher inertia for a charged capacitor over an uncharged capacitor. That's pretty much all you need to generate net thrust (or perhaps torque). My view is that the Machian model of physics is already incorporated into general relativity (and related approximations like special relativity and Newtonian mechanics).

Wow, this is a long sentence. I did look at the URL and I notice that this Woodward is in humanities.

Quote from: khallow on 03/17/2009 03:14 AM3. General relativity and electromagnetism. They would predict a slightly higher inertia for a charged capacitor over an uncharged capacitor. That's pretty much all you need to generate net thrust (or perhaps torque). My view is that the Machian model of physics is already incorporated into general relativity (and related approximations like special relativity and Newtonian mechanics).Any torques generated can be nulled to create precessionary thrust by using two counterrotating devices. I've also done this on a hydraulic model.

Quote from: Celebrimbor on 03/16/2009 06:47 PMWow, this is a long sentence. I did look at the URL and I notice that this Woodward is in humanities.Woodward has his BS and MA in Physics. Trying to discredit him as some sort of sociologist playing at physics wont work.