Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 288091 times)

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1060 on: 10/09/2017 06:24 PM »
« Last Edit: 10/09/2017 06:25 PM by Bob012345 »

Offline vnbt4

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • california
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1061 on: 10/10/2017 02:22 AM »
Hello, I have been popping into the forum for a while now and have been wonder what happened to the Mach Lorentz thruster experiments?

Also, i don't have a physics or engineering background at all. So I ask that you forgive my presumptuousness but, I was wondering if a plasma might be a possible substitute for a capacitor or PZT stack?

Thank you.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1062 on: 10/12/2017 07:06 PM »
Tajmar's new model of a Mach Effect Thruster.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319974638_Mach-Effect_thruster_model

Tajmar says only mechanical power, not electrical power, generated by the PZT stack is responsible for the mass fluctuations. Doesn't that imply other mechanical means aside from PZT stacks or PIN-PMN-PT materials might be developed?
« Last Edit: 10/12/2017 07:28 PM by Bob012345 »

Offline GeneralRulofDumb

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1063 on: 10/13/2017 08:55 AM »
Tajmar's new model of a Mach Effect Thruster.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319974638_Mach-Effect_thruster_model

Tajmar says only mechanical power, not electrical power, generated by the PZT stack is responsible for the mass fluctuations. Doesn't that imply other mechanical means aside from PZT stacks or PIN-PMN-PT materials might be developed?

Somehow that seems to make sense, considering that inertia is a purely physical/mechanical phenomenon.
Creating mechanical fluctuations at frequencies of several dozens of kHz is a great challenge, however.

On that note, as inertia is an effect experienced by objects with mass, couldn't one mechanically 'fluctuate' electrons, giving the possibility of much higher frequencies ?

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3898
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1064 on: 10/13/2017 09:48 AM »
Nanotubes could be made to mechanically oscillate at very high frequencies:

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep22600

1.7 MHz is pretty fast for a mechanical oscillation frequency
« Last Edit: 10/13/2017 09:49 AM by sanman »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1065 on: 10/13/2017 04:17 PM »
Nanotubes could be made to mechanically oscillate at very high frequencies:

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep22600

1.7 MHz is pretty fast for a mechanical oscillation frequency

Chip based micro-mechanical resonators might work if the derivative of the mechanical power can be made high enough. Plus all the control electronics can be fabricated with the oscillators. The power doesn't have to be huge but it's rate of change does.

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1066 on: 10/13/2017 05:23 PM »
Tajmar's new model of a Mach Effect Thruster.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319974638_Mach-Effect_thruster_model

Tajmar says only mechanical power, not electrical power, generated by the PZT stack is responsible for the mass fluctuations. Doesn't that imply other mechanical means aside from PZT stacks or PIN-PMN-PT materials might be developed?

My hypothesis was that it is just another Dean Drive. I had thought of experimenting on it but it seems Tajmar is ahead of me and my plan.
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1067 on: 10/14/2017 03:58 AM »
I'm interested in the possibility, hinted at in the conclusions of the Estes Park workshop proceedings, that Woodward Mach effects could be derived from conventional, textbook general relativity, without advanced waves. What should I read?

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 1820
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1068 on: 10/14/2017 03:18 PM »
I'm interested in the possibility, hinted at in the conclusions of the Estes Park workshop proceedings, that Woodward Mach effects could be derived from conventional, textbook general relativity, without advanced waves. What should I read?

Lance Williams, and watch the videos. That part was a very short discussion, not part of any particular presentation.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3898
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1069 on: 10/18/2017 10:40 AM »
So there's some things I wanted to ask about here

According to what Dr Fearn said, the propulsive force generated goes up with the cube of the oscillation frequency?

Also, does the propulsive effect get more efficient at faster - even relativistic - velocities?
(If so, then that's quite an appealing way to travel. And in that case, then don't you want to measure those propulsive forces during a test flight, where you're already moving as fast as possible?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLs9NEt9LRQ#t=18m54
« Last Edit: 10/18/2017 10:42 AM by sanman »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3898
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1070 on: 10/18/2017 12:55 PM »
Nanotubes could be made to mechanically oscillate at very high frequencies:

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep22600

1.7 MHz is pretty fast for a mechanical oscillation frequency

Chip based micro-mechanical resonators might work if the derivative of the mechanical power can be made high enough. Plus all the control electronics can be fabricated with the oscillators. The power doesn't have to be huge but it's rate of change does.

Does anyone remember that experiment from UC Riverside, where they generated Lateral Casimir Force by nesting together 2 nano-precision corrugated surfaces, to make some kind of MEMS "virtual spring"?

http://www.physics.ucr.edu/people/faculty/mohideen.html

Couldn't this be used as a tiny mechanical oscillator?

But Dr Fearn said there needs to be damping, right? In that case, Nanotubes are said to have a lot of damping and a lower Q factor.

Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1071 on: 10/19/2017 12:56 AM »
Tajmar's new model of a Mach Effect Thruster.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319974638_Mach-Effect_thruster_model

Tajmar says only mechanical power, not electrical power, generated by the PZT stack is responsible for the mass fluctuations. Doesn't that imply other mechanical means aside from PZT stacks or PIN-PMN-PT materials might be developed?

My hypothesis was that it is just another Dean Drive. I had thought of experimenting on it but it seems Tajmar is ahead of me and my plan.

Tajmar is not saying it's a Dean Drive though, he's saying he has no reason to think it isn't real.  The electrical power is how the mechanical power is being created.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3898
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1072 on: 10/19/2017 06:54 AM »
Is it possible to use a rotational oscillation to achieve a similar effect with torque?

Instead of a linear oscillation, imagine a device that twists one way, and then twists back the other way. And then likewise you'd be varying the mass on one stroke compared to the return stroke.

Would that produce a rotational torque in the same way that the linear oscillation allegedly produces the linear force? Wouldn't the mathematical description be derived in roughly the same way?

So I'm imagining this could be used for producing torque to change the orientation of a spacecraft without the use of propellant or reaction wheels.

Could a Mach Effect for Torque produce something similar to the Lens-Thirring Effect? (ie. rotational frame-dragging)

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1073 on: 10/19/2017 04:43 PM »
Is it possible to use a rotational oscillation to achieve a similar effect with torque?

Instead of a linear oscillation, imagine a device that twists one way, and then twists back the other way. And then likewise you'd be varying the mass on one stroke compared to the return stroke.

Would that produce a rotational torque in the same way that the linear oscillation allegedly produces the linear force? Wouldn't the mathematical description be derived in roughly the same way?

So I'm imagining this could be used for producing torque to change the orientation of a spacecraft without the use of propellant or reaction wheels.

Could a Mach Effect for Torque produce something similar to the Lens-Thirring Effect? (ie. rotational frame-dragging)

I hope so as that's the natural way to use the effect to create an energy generator. I would assume if it really works, it should work in any orientation which implies it would work in a rotational device too. In the Q&A of the recent NIAC presentation they imply energy generation is possible but then claim "There are far more efficient ways of extracting energy. Trying to extract energy from gravitation via the Mach effect is very inefficient". Well maybe now but if we assume the technology they project to make the probe possible ~around 4.5N per KW, it's just a matter of design. And the probe itself ends up generating almost a quarter million times as much kinetic energy w.r.t. the earth frame as total electrical energy input which works out to an average power of 340 GW continuously over the whole 20 year trip. And how does one measure efficiency for a process, that once the engineering of such devices is done, and yes that would be costly, there is no fuel cost and it makes energy anywhere continuously till the parts wear out! Of course it won't make as much energy per device because rotational speeds are limited in practice. It would probably take advantage of advanced flywheel technology.

 Also, nothing could be simpler than reaction wheels to change the orientation of a spacecraft and the Mach effect would be overkill.


« Last Edit: 10/19/2017 05:42 PM by Bob012345 »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3898
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1074 on: 10/19/2017 08:03 PM »
I hope so as that's the natural way to use the effect to create an energy generator. I would assume if it really works, it should work in any orientation which implies it would work in a rotational device too. In the Q&A of the recent NIAC presentation they imply energy generation is possible but then claim "There are far more efficient ways of extracting energy. Trying to extract energy from gravitation via the Mach effect is very inefficient". Well maybe now but if we assume the technology they project to make the probe possible ~around 4.5N per KW, it's just a matter of design. And the probe itself ends up generating almost a quarter million times as much kinetic energy w.r.t. the earth frame as total electrical energy input which works out to an average power of 340 GW continuously over the whole 20 year trip. And how does one measure efficiency for a process, that once the engineering of such devices is done, and yes that would be costly, there is no fuel cost and it makes energy anywhere continuously till the parts wear out! Of course it won't make as much energy per device because rotational speeds are limited in practice. It would probably take advantage of advanced flywheel technology.

Also, nothing could be simpler than reaction wheels to change the orientation of a spacecraft and the Mach effect would be overkill.

Well, even reaction wheels can get saturated, and propellant must be expended to desaturate them.

What about a rotary device that didn't twist back and forth, but just kept rotating continuously? You would vary energy-potential/mass downward on half of the period, and vary it upward on the other half. Could that create a net force in one direction?

Anyway, for the linear device I think carbon nanotubes would be best. Based on the issues they were discussing in their presentations, it sounds like device longevity could be a concern. Nanotubes are strong and can take a lot of stress. They're also conductive and can be used as both sensors as well as transducers. This could help in that feedback-control idea that Dr Rodal proposed.

It's possible to vary their length using Field Effect to quantum-mechanically change the C-C bond length, and as we know Field Effect Transistors are probably the smallest/fastest type of switch available.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2017 08:04 PM by sanman »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3898
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1075 on: 10/20/2017 08:43 AM »
Please note the following citation, which dates from 2004:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0957-4484/15/4/012/meta

Quote
We report molecular dynamics studies of carbon nanotubes as mechanical gigahertz oscillators. Our results show that different oscillatory regimes exist but that sustained oscillations are possible only when the radii difference values of the inner and outer tubes are ~3.4 Å. Frequencies as large as 87 GHz were obtained. Calculated force and frequency values are in good agreement with estimated data from recent experimental investigations.

87 GHz is an astonishingly high frequency for a mechanical oscillator - and if the force scales up with the cube of frequency, then wouldn't a frequency like this send the force levels up through the roof?

This citation dates from 2004. Has anybody actually been able to achieve such mechanical oscillation frequencies since then?

Additionally, in the presentation by Dr Rodal that I saw online, he mentions the issues/challenges with piezos, such as stress fracturing and heat buildup. Nanotubes are very strong and very thermally conductive, so that such problems would be mitigated.


Here's a different citation from 2011:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl203279v




And now that I think about it further, didn't Dr Rodal say during his presentation that having larger cross-sectional area relative to the axis of oscillation, would achieve more Mach Effect force?

So then why not even use planar graphene sheets in a manner similar to the nanotube image I included above?

Just as the nanotube can be made to oscillate/vibrate like a guitar string, likewise the graphene sheets could be made to oscillate/vibrate like a drum skin. This would then also allow much greater cross-sectional area to improve the propulsive force.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22141577

Quote
We present a simple micromanipulation technique to transfer suspended graphene flakes onto any substrate and to assemble them with small localized gates into mechanical resonators. The mechanical motion of the graphene is detected using an electrical, radio frequency (RF) reflection readout scheme where the time-varying graphene capacitor reflects a RF carrier at f = 5-6 GHz producing modulation sidebands at f ± f(m). A mechanical resonance frequency up to f(m) = 178 MHz is demonstrated. We find both hardening/softening Duffing effects on different samples and obtain a critical amplitude of ~40 pm for the onset of nonlinearity in graphene mechanical resonators. Measurements of the quality factor of the mechanical resonance as a function of dc bias voltage V(dc) indicates that dissipation due to motion-induced displacement currents in graphene electrode is important at high frequencies and large V(dc).

« Last Edit: 10/20/2017 10:47 AM by sanman »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1076 on: 10/20/2017 04:10 PM »
I hope so as that's the natural way to use the effect to create an energy generator. I would assume if it really works, it should work in any orientation which implies it would work in a rotational device too. In the Q&A of the recent NIAC presentation they imply energy generation is possible but then claim "There are far more efficient ways of extracting energy. Trying to extract energy from gravitation via the Mach effect is very inefficient". Well maybe now but if we assume the technology they project to make the probe possible ~around 4.5N per KW, it's just a matter of design. And the probe itself ends up generating almost a quarter million times as much kinetic energy w.r.t. the earth frame as total electrical energy input which works out to an average power of 340 GW continuously over the whole 20 year trip. And how does one measure efficiency for a process, that once the engineering of such devices is done, and yes that would be costly, there is no fuel cost and it makes energy anywhere continuously till the parts wear out! Of course it won't make as much energy per device because rotational speeds are limited in practice. It would probably take advantage of advanced flywheel technology.

Also, nothing could be simpler than reaction wheels to change the orientation of a spacecraft and the Mach effect would be overkill.

Well, even reaction wheels can get saturated, and propellant must be expended to desaturate them.

What about a rotary device that didn't twist back and forth, but just kept rotating continuously? You would vary energy-potential/mass downward on half of the period, and vary it upward on the other half. Could that create a net force in one direction?

No, rotational motion cannot be rectified into linear motion in free space. That was the basis of the 'Dean Drive' and associated inventions which don't work. If it did linear momentum wouldn't be conserved. You can spin up mass and release it but that just makes the device into a rocket of sorts which does conserve both angular and linear momentum.
« Last Edit: 10/20/2017 05:09 PM by Bob012345 »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3898
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1077 on: 10/20/2017 05:52 PM »
Speaking of graphene, individual electrons traveling inside graphene have been shown to behave masslessly, like the photon.
But if you apply an electric field, they'll collectively behave like they have mass.

https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2014/06/measuring-mass-of-massless-electrons

Quote
“Graphene is a unique material because, effectively, individual graphene electrons act as though they have no mass. What that means is that the individual electrons always move at a constant velocity,” explains Ham. “But suppose we apply a force, like an electric field. The velocity of the individual electrons still remains constant, but collectively, they accelerate and their total energy increases—just like entities with mass. It’s quite interesting.”


If we can then selectively apply an electric field to the electrons as they move back and forth in graphene, then can't this likewise produce the Mach Effect?

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3898
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1078 on: 10/21/2017 12:29 PM »
Okay, building further on what I was saying - can we combine the graphene ideas expressed in my last 2 posts?

IE.:  Can we have our graphene drumskin vibrating/oscillating back and forth along the axis that is orthonormal to its surface -- and while this is going on, we have electrons moving back and forth across the graphene??

So the idea would then be that while the graphene sheet is moving one way, we will like our electrons to move masslessly, and then while the graphene sheet is moving back the other way, then we will like our electrons to move back across the sheet in a way that exhibits mass (ie. we would apply electric field for this).

And we want all of this to happen at Gigahertz frequency.


(Okay, I know you'll probably say there's something obvious I'm neglecting, but try not to bash me like a drum)   ;)
« Last Edit: 10/21/2017 12:49 PM by sanman »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 209
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1079 on: 10/21/2017 04:37 PM »
Okay, building further on what I was saying - can we combine the graphene ideas expressed in my last 2 posts?

IE.:  Can we have our graphene drumskin vibrating/oscillating back and forth along the axis that is orthonormal to its surface -- and while this is going on, we have electrons moving back and forth across the graphene??

So the idea would then be that while the graphene sheet is moving one way, we will like our electrons to move masslessly, and then while the graphene sheet is moving back the other way, then we will like our electrons to move back across the sheet in a way that exhibits mass (ie. we would apply electric field for this).

And we want all of this to happen at Gigahertz frequency.


(Okay, I know you'll probably say there's something obvious I'm neglecting, but try not to bash me like a drum)   ;)

That's a proposal I would have to defer to the experts in the Mach effect to comment on. I don't know.  :)