Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 285901 times)

Offline Flyby

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #820 on: 04/07/2017 08:19 AM »

.......... 

As I have said before, I remain perplexed that the upstart EMdrive (sorry EMdrive fans) has diverted so much intellectual effort and resources from what in my view is the so much more elegant, theoretically supported, (and frankly simpler to understand for a layman like me), Mach Effect, which seems to have been on the verge of a massive breakthrough for the last two decades.

I simply have not been able to understand why Profs Woodward and Fearn have been tinkering away in a little private lab for decades, while so much money and attention has been thrown at concepts like the EMdrive which no one, even now, seems able to agree on as to why it works, if it works at all.
.........
Really?
Where did the EMdrive divert "resources"?
I think you're confusing sensational news focus with actual financial resources allocated to the EMdrive "research".
According P.March, who worked on the EMdrive at Nasa, the EagleWorks budget for the EMdrive was so ridiculously tiny that they could not afford to search for a better performing resonance, the project was executed by part time employed engineers, while cannibalizing the EW warehouse shelves for anything that might be of use...
You do have a point however that it is a general rule that with limited budgets available, far less effort is going to what most still consider "fringe science"... 

which regrettable, but understandable from a management point of view...
It is hard to decide when something is a potential groundbraking discovery, or just a dead end...

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #821 on: 04/07/2017 08:40 AM »

.......... 

As I have said before, I remain perplexed that the upstart EMdrive (sorry EMdrive fans) has diverted so much intellectual effort and resources from what in my view is the so much more elegant, theoretically supported, (and frankly simpler to understand for a layman like me), Mach Effect, which seems to have been on the verge of a massive breakthrough for the last two decades.

I simply have not been able to understand why Profs Woodward and Fearn have been tinkering away in a little private lab for decades, while so much money and attention has been thrown at concepts like the EMdrive which no one, even now, seems able to agree on as to why it works, if it works at all.
.........
Really?
Where did the EMdrive divert "resources"?
I think you're confusing sensational news focus with actual financial resources allocated to the EMdrive "research".
According P.March, who worked on the EMdrive at Nasa, the EagleWorks budget for the EMdrive was so ridiculously tiny that they could not afford to search for a better performing resonance, the project was executed by part time employed engineers, while cannibalizing the EW warehouse shelves for anything that might be of use...
You do have a point however that it is a general rule that with limited budgets available, far less effort is going to what most still consider "fringe science"... 

which regrettable, but understandable from a management point of view...
It is hard to decide when something is a potential groundbraking discovery, or just a dead end...

Sure, I take your point. As an outsider, it is easy to get the impression that a lot of noise and attention equates to a lot of resources going into a particular idea. That may well not be the case.

As an example, however, I note the immense amounts of time and input that went just into the continuing EMDrive thread on this very site. Posts that give us just a snapshot of a LOT of time and effort going into the pursuit of the EMDrive behind the scenes, from people who clearly have a lot of knowledge, skill and expertise.

By comparison, very little independent effort seems to have gone into proving Woodward's Mach Effect concepts. I do believe I have seen a slight shift on that front of late (the past year or so), with some respected members of this forum gravitating towards potential common causes behind both phenomena, with some being listed even in the post by HMXHMX above as having peripheral involvement in Mach Effect research.

Anyway, my post was meant to be celebratory rather than a complaint about other ideas getting more support. Let's hope this development is an important step on the way to a fundamental breakthrough in space propulsion.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2017 08:42 AM by M.E.T. »

Offline Ric Capucho

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #822 on: 04/07/2017 10:48 AM »
I think you'll find that Paul March has made large contributions to experimentation in both Mach Effect and EM drive camps.

One of my experimental scientific heroes, to be honest.

Let's celebrate the great step, and await that moment when a MET (or EM Drive, or both) finally gets chucked out of an ISS airlock.

The proof's in the pudding.

Ric


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 298
  • Likes Given: 583
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #823 on: 04/07/2017 01:40 PM »
Just an FYI – Space Studies Institute (ssi.org) was selected as a NASA NIAC Phase I grantee:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-22-visionary-exploration-concepts

for our proposal "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission". Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute in Mojave, California and CalState Fullerton will be PI.

...


These are fantastic news. It was about time MET received due attention and additional funding at the institutional level at NASA. Congrats to Professors Woodward, Fearn and everyone that helped carry this effort through these years.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1792
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #824 on: 04/07/2017 02:28 PM »
This is great news about the grant.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
« Last Edit: 05/12/2017 03:10 PM by Rodal »

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1308
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #826 on: 04/07/2017 09:51 PM »
^ Startrek TMP era (Reliant or Miranda class roll bar and nacelles) combined with TNG or Voyager era primary hull kitbash.


I knew it! I knew NASA was making a warp capable starship! ;)
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #827 on: 04/09/2017 02:48 PM »
They now have a NASA page on the NIAC award:

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effects_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission



Jose' & Crew:

Please note my attached presentation from my STAIF-2006 Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) paper.  I have a question about these MLTs and how to build them so they actually work.  Given Woodward and Fearn’s 2012 JPC paper, see attached, with its extra steps in the Mach-Effect derivation, see pages 4 & 5, equations 8 thru 12, when they added the work required to accelerate the dielectric, what would you add to Woodward's Mach-6 MHz MLTs to make them work like my MLT-2004 unit did, see attached STAIF-2006 pdf file. 

When I built the MLT-2004 back in the summer & fall of 2003, I already knew that their piezoelectric response should be import to their MLT functioning.  Therefore I went to the trouble of hand selecting the Vishay/Ceramite Y5R, 1,000 pF at 10 kV ceramic caps used in this MLT-2004, so they all had a measurable piezoelectric response using my rude and crude piezo response rap test using my 100 MHz Tektronix scope and 10X voltage prove as the signal detector, see attached rap data slide.  It turned out that of the ~100, 1,000 pF @ 10kV Ceramite ceramic caps procured and tested, only about 30% had any kind of piezoelectric response, (the energy storage cap Mfg.s do NOT characterize their cap's piezoelectric response, surprise, surprise.), and those are the caps I used to assemble my MLT-2004 MLT that used 8 caps wired in series mounted on a PC board ring that was mounted to the toroidal vxB coil via a bed of RTV silicone rubber.  However I had no clue as to what axis these caps had their maximum piezoelectric response in. 

Considering the vxB thrust magnitude dependency on the vector acceleration directions needed for the MLT function, it would appear that the best way to use this piezoelectric response would be to design a hybrid MLT using one or more energy storage caps mounted at right angles to a piezoelectric driver disc(s), so the main piezoelectric response of the PZT drivers would be in the vxB thruster's Z-axis, with the resulting vxB cap-ring and PZT drivers placed in its toroidal B-field coil mounting system that allowed such Z-axis accelerations as my MLT-2004 cap-ring RTV rubber mounts apparently did.  Your thoughts?

BTW, since Woodward has already validated the V^4 thrust scaling for these MLT's when they are connected in the series R-L-C resonant circuit, small variations in their RF drive voltage will create large changes in their thrust outputs.  For instance, when driven at ~650V-peak at 2.2 MHz using a high impedance (~350 ohms)  open-wire transmission line to feed it, the 8-cap in series MLT-2004 thruster produced 2-to-4 milli-Newton or 2,000 to 4,000 micro-Newton (uN), with 20 watts of RF input power.  When I tried to use a 75 ohm coaxial transmission line to suppress EMI effects, the highest RF voltage obtained with the same 20W of RF was only ~150V-peak across the 8 series connected caps in this thruster.  And I could not detect any thrust signal above my load cell's 0.10 milli-Newton noise platform with this "improved" coax driven system.  I thought at the time I had just proved that my original 2-to-4 milli-Newton signal was just EMI in the load cell amplifier circuit, but if we assume V^4 thrust scaling, we find that the expected thrust for the 2.2 MHz, 150V-peak drive signal would only be ~3,000 uN * (150/650)^4 = 8.50 uN which was well below my load cell's ~100 uN noise platform.

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #828 on: 04/09/2017 04:11 PM »
This is more of a question for clarification than anything else.

From my assorted readings on the progress with Mach Effect research over the years, I was under the impression that Woodward eventually concluded that the earlier Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) research was a dead end, and that the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) theory was the avenue that showed promise.

Now, I may be confused on this. Could someone clarify for me whether my recollection is wrong in this regard?


« Last Edit: 04/09/2017 04:14 PM by M.E.T. »

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 927
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #829 on: 04/09/2017 05:44 PM »
This is more of a question for clarification than anything else.

From my assorted readings on the progress with Mach Effect research over the years, I was under the impression that Woodward eventually concluded that the earlier Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) research was a dead end, and that the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) theory was the avenue that showed promise.

Now, I may be confused on this. Could someone clarify for me whether my recollection is wrong in this regard?

You're right! It was Nembo Buldrini's Bulk Acceleration Conjecture, back in 2007-2008. I quote Jim Woodward in his book Making Starships and Stargates, page 135 of 1st edition (just before chapter 5):

Quote from: Woodward
Sooner or later we have to deal with the fact that the results of the various experimental efforts over the years were, to put it circumspectly, variable at best […] The person who put his finger on that more fundamental issue was Nembo Buldrini. What he pointed out was that given the way the transient terms of the Mach effect equation are written – in terms of the time-derivatives of the proper energy density – it is easy to lose sight of the requirement in the derivation that the object in which the mass fluctuations occur must be accelerating at the same time. In some of the experimental cases, no provision for such "bulk" acceleration was made.15 As an example, the capacitors affixed to the tines of the tuning fork in the Cramer and the students' experiments made no provision for such an acceleration. Had the tuning fork been separately exited and an electric field applied to the capacitor(s) been properly phased, an effect might have been seen. But to simply apply a voltage to the capacitors and then look for a response in the tuning fork should not have been expected to produce a compelling result.
Other examples could be cited and discussed. Suffice it to say, though, that after Nembo focused attention in the issue of bulk accelerations in the production of Mach effects, the design and execution of experiments changed. The transition to that work, and recent results of experiments presently in progress, are addressed in the next chapter.

15 By "bulk" acceleration we are referring to the fact that the conditions of the derivation include that the object be both accelerated and experience internal energy changes. The acceleration of ions in the material of a capacitor, for example, does not meet this condition. The capacitor as a whole must be accelerated in bulk while it is being polarized.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #830 on: 04/09/2017 05:52 PM »
This is more of a question for clarification than anything else.

From my assorted readings on the progress with Mach Effect research over the years, I was under the impression that Woodward eventually concluded that the earlier Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) research was a dead end, and that the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) theory was the avenue that showed promise.

Now, I may be confused on this. Could someone clarify for me whether my recollection is wrong in this regard?

You're right! It was Nembo Buldrini's Bulk Acceleration Conjecture, back in 2007-2008. I quote Jim Woodward in his book Making Starships and Stargates, page 135 of 1st edition (just before chapter 5):

Quote from: Woodward
Sooner or later we have to deal with the fact that the results of the various experimental efforts over the years were, to put it circumspectly, variable at best […] The person who put his finger on that more fundamental issue was Nembo Buldrini. What he pointed out was that given the way the transient terms of the Mach effect equation are written – in terms of the time-derivatives of the proper energy density – it is easy to lose sight of the requirement in the derivation that the object in which the mass fluctuations occur must be accelerating at the same time. In some of the experimental cases, no provision for such "bulk" acceleration was made.15 As an example, the capacitors affixed to the tines of the tuning fork in the Cramer and the students' experiments made no provision for such an acceleration. Had the tuning fork been separately exited and an electric field applied to the capacitor(s) been properly phased, an effect might have been seen. But to simply apply a voltage to the capacitors and then look for a response in the tuning fork should not have been expected to produce a compelling result.
Other examples could be cited and discussed. Suffice it to say, though, that after Nembo focused attention in the issue of bulk accelerations in the production of Mach effects, the design and execution of experiments changed. The transition to that work, and recent results of experiments presently in progress, are addressed in the next chapter.

15 By "bulk" acceleration we are referring to the fact that the conditions of the derivation include that the object be both accelerated and experience internal energy changes. The acceleration of ions in the material of a capacitor, for example, does not meet this condition. The capacitor as a whole must be accelerated in bulk while it is being polarized.

Ah yes. Thank you. That's the reference I was thinking of, although I couldn't remember where it was from.

Much appreciated.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #831 on: 04/09/2017 07:31 PM »
This is more of a question for clarification than anything else.

From my assorted readings on the progress with Mach Effect research over the years, I was under the impression that Woodward eventually concluded that the earlier Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) research was a dead end, and that the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) theory was the avenue that showed promise.

Now, I may be confused on this. Could someone clarify for me whether my recollection is wrong in this regard?

You're right! It was Nembo Buldrini's Bulk Acceleration Conjecture, back in 2007-2008. I quote Jim Woodward in his book Making Starships and Stargates, page 135 of 1st edition (just before chapter 5):

Quote from: Woodward
Sooner or later we have to deal with the fact that the results of the various experimental efforts over the years were, to put it circumspectly, variable at best […] The person who put his finger on that more fundamental issue was Nembo Buldrini. What he pointed out was that given the way the transient terms of the Mach effect equation are written – in terms of the time-derivatives of the proper energy density – it is easy to lose sight of the requirement in the derivation that the object in which the mass fluctuations occur must be accelerating at the same time. In some of the experimental cases, no provision for such "bulk" acceleration was made.15 As an example, the capacitors affixed to the tines of the tuning fork in the Cramer and the students' experiments made no provision for such an acceleration. Had the tuning fork been separately exited and an electric field applied to the capacitor(s) been properly phased, an effect might have been seen. But to simply apply a voltage to the capacitors and then look for a response in the tuning fork should not have been expected to produce a compelling result.
Other examples could be cited and discussed. Suffice it to say, though, that after Nembo focused attention in the issue of bulk accelerations in the production of Mach effects, the design and execution of experiments changed. The transition to that work, and recent results of experiments presently in progress, are addressed in the next chapter.

15 By "bulk" acceleration we are referring to the fact that the conditions of the derivation include that the object be both accelerated and experience internal energy changes. The acceleration of ions in the material of a capacitor, for example, does not meet this condition. The capacitor as a whole must be accelerated in bulk while it is being polarized.

Ah yes. Thank you. That's the reference I was thinking of, although I couldn't remember where it was from.

Much appreciated.

M.E.T. and Flux-Cap:

"The person who put his finger on that more fundamental issue was Nembo Buldrini. What he pointed out was that given the way the transient terms of the Mach effect equation are written – in terms of the time-derivatives of the proper energy density – it is easy to lose sight of the requirement in the derivation that the object in which the mass fluctuations occur must be accelerating at the same time."

Thus the need for a dedicated PZT actuator needed to accelerate the energy storing and mass fluctuating cap in the preferred thrust vector direction.  And the fact that my MLT-2004 may have already produced up to 9.0 milli-Newton is why I resurrected the MLT topic.

Best,
Star-Drive

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #832 on: 04/09/2017 09:05 PM »
This is more of a question for clarification than anything else.

From my assorted readings on the progress with Mach Effect research over the years, I was under the impression that Woodward eventually concluded that the earlier Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) research was a dead end, and that the Mach Effect Thruster (MET) theory was the avenue that showed promise.

Now, I may be confused on this. Could someone clarify for me whether my recollection is wrong in this regard?

You're right! It was Nembo Buldrini's Bulk Acceleration Conjecture, back in 2007-2008. I quote Jim Woodward in his book Making Starships and Stargates, page 135 of 1st edition (just before chapter 5):

Quote from: Woodward
Sooner or later we have to deal with the fact that the results of the various experimental efforts over the years were, to put it circumspectly, variable at best […] The person who put his finger on that more fundamental issue was Nembo Buldrini. What he pointed out was that given the way the transient terms of the Mach effect equation are written – in terms of the time-derivatives of the proper energy density – it is easy to lose sight of the requirement in the derivation that the object in which the mass fluctuations occur must be accelerating at the same time. In some of the experimental cases, no provision for such "bulk" acceleration was made.15 As an example, the capacitors affixed to the tines of the tuning fork in the Cramer and the students' experiments made no provision for such an acceleration. Had the tuning fork been separately exited and an electric field applied to the capacitor(s) been properly phased, an effect might have been seen. But to simply apply a voltage to the capacitors and then look for a response in the tuning fork should not have been expected to produce a compelling result.
Other examples could be cited and discussed. Suffice it to say, though, that after Nembo focused attention in the issue of bulk accelerations in the production of Mach effects, the design and execution of experiments changed. The transition to that work, and recent results of experiments presently in progress, are addressed in the next chapter.

15 By "bulk" acceleration we are referring to the fact that the conditions of the derivation include that the object be both accelerated and experience internal energy changes. The acceleration of ions in the material of a capacitor, for example, does not meet this condition. The capacitor as a whole must be accelerated in bulk while it is being polarized.

Ah yes. Thank you. That's the reference I was thinking of, although I couldn't remember where it was from.

Much appreciated.

M.E.T. and Flux-Cap:

"The person who put his finger on that more fundamental issue was Nembo Buldrini. What he pointed out was that given the way the transient terms of the Mach effect equation are written – in terms of the time-derivatives of the proper energy density – it is easy to lose sight of the requirement in the derivation that the object in which the mass fluctuations occur must be accelerating at the same time."

Thus the need for a dedicated PZT actuator needed to accelerate the energy storing and mass fluctuating cap in the preferred thrust vector direction.  And the fact that my MLT-2004 may have already produced up to 9.0 milli-Newton is why I resurrected the MLT topic.

Best,

Thanks Paul.

I just watched the Youtube videos of Dr. Rodal, Dr. Fearn and Prof Woodward's presentations at the Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop late last year. It was fascinating to listen to them talk. It really feels as if there is new impetus and a sense of excitement that we may be on the threshold of something groundbreaking.

There were two comments in particular that caught my attention in Jim's presentation, which I would like some clarification on. (Paul, he referred to you a few times and at one point seems to talk to a "Paul" in the audience, so am I correct in concluding that you were in attendance during his chat? If so, maybe you can help me with the two items of interest).

Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

And the second striking comment - which I could see he was somewhat hesitant to talk about, but probably thought "what the hell, let me speak my mind" - related to RB-47. When quizzed as to the potential optimal configuration for a "heavy lifting" Mach Effect device, he suggested that the signals detected from the RB-47 case might well have been the readings from the powerplant driving a Mach Effect Device in whatever the object was that the air force was tracking. And that this might well be the ultimate configuration or "end goal" of the Mach Effect journey that is still in its infancy.

Has he ever mentioned this before, in your interactions? It is a tantalizing thought, and something which  he admitted jokingly afterwards  would probably make people take the Mach Effect less seriously after he mentioned it, although he felt it would be a mistake on their part to do so.

Anyway, as I said, fascinating discussion. Leaving one with a lot to ponder on.
« Last Edit: 04/09/2017 09:15 PM by M.E.T. »

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 927
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #833 on: 04/09/2017 10:55 PM »
Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

I'll let Paul answer what you asked, but I can add a valid point about the EmDrive + Mach effet thing during the conference:

According to Woodward, if Shawyer's EmDrive is genuine propellantless propulsion, it works through a Mach effect and nothing else. Sure this device involves RF waves and is very different from an array of vibrating solid-state piezoelectric discs; nevertheless at the same Estes Park conference, a paper entitled "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" has been presented by Dr Jean-Philippe Montillet from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. In this paper Montillet details for the first time a possible mechanism explaining the EmDrive thrust in terms of a Mach effect.

Dr Rodal summarized this paper as:
"The RF resonant cavity thruster (EmDrive) would act as a capacitor where:
• surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates,
• electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
• a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall
• and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer.
When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor.
The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

Paper attached below.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #834 on: 04/09/2017 11:08 PM »
Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

I'll let Paul answer what you asked, but I can add a valid point about the EmDrive + Mach effet thing during the conference:

According to Woodward, if Shawyer's EmDrive is genuine propellantless propulsion, it works through a Mach effect and nothing else. Sure this device involves RF waves and is very different from an array of vibrating solid-state piezoelectric discs; nevertheless at the same Estes Park conference, a paper entitled "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" has been presented by Dr Jean-Philippe Montillet from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. In this paper Montillet details for the first time a possible mechanism explaining the EmDrive thrust in terms of a Mach effect.

Dr Rodal summarized this paper as:
"The RF resonant cavity thruster (EmDrive) would act as a capacitor where:
• surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates,
• electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
• a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall
• and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer.
When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor.
The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

Paper attached below.

Thank you! That explains the potential cross over comment from Prof. Woodward, then. And also ties in with his comment that he believes the "solid state" Mach Effect Thruster would likely work much better, because of "all kinds of other things going on in the EMdrive cavity", to paraphrase him.

This is also entirely consistent with the previous time I heard him talk about the EMdrive, in a radio interview. That time I believe he also said that if there is any real effect in the EMdrive, it is probably due to some type of accidental Mach Effect being generated. Which your reference to the paper above seems to just have put into some kind of solid theory.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #835 on: 04/09/2017 11:48 PM »
Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

I'll let Paul answer what you asked, but I can add a valid point about the EmDrive + Mach effet thing during the conference:

According to Woodward, if Shawyer's EmDrive is genuine propellantless propulsion, it works through a Mach effect and nothing else. Sure this device involves RF waves and is very different from an array of vibrating solid-state piezoelectric discs; nevertheless at the same Estes Park conference, a paper entitled "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" has been presented by Dr Jean-Philippe Montillet from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. In this paper Montillet details for the first time a possible mechanism explaining the EmDrive thrust in terms of a Mach effect.

Dr Rodal summarized this paper as:
"The RF resonant cavity thruster (EmDrive) would act as a capacitor where:
• surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates,
• electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
• a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall
• and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer.
When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor.
The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

Paper attached below.

Thank you! That explains the potential cross over comment from Prof. Woodward, then. And also ties in with his comment that he believes the "solid state" Mach Effect Thruster would likely work much better, because of "all kinds of other things going on in the EMdrive cavity", to paraphrase him.

This is also entirely consistent with the previous time I heard him talk about the EMdrive, in a radio interview. That time I believe he also said that if there is any real effect in the EMdrive, it is probably due to some type of accidental Mach Effect being generated. Which your reference to the paper above seems to just have put into some kind of solid theory.

M.E.T.:

Yes, I attended the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop and yes, the Paul that Jim referred to was I.  And I also gave a talk on the Eagleworks Lab's Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) in-vacuum test series reported in the AIAA/Journal of Propulsion and Power.  You can find my video talk a few places below Jim's on the SSI.org YouTube page.

As far as Jim's preference in MEGA drive construction goes, we will end up using the best performing approach be it the current PZT stacks, redesigned Mach Lorentz Thrusters (MLT), or a better understood EMdrive that at its heart is a MEGA drive in hiding.

BTW, Dr. Rodal has an interesting and fundamental observation on the operation of the MEGA drives that he just revealed to the MEGA drive NIAC team that will blow the doors off this business.  And yes, that is a tease...:)

Best, Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #836 on: 04/10/2017 12:54 AM »
Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

I'll let Paul answer what you asked, but I can add a valid point about the EmDrive + Mach effet thing during the conference:

According to Woodward, if Shawyer's EmDrive is genuine propellantless propulsion, it works through a Mach effect and nothing else. Sure this device involves RF waves and is very different from an array of vibrating solid-state piezoelectric discs; nevertheless at the same Estes Park conference, a paper entitled "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" has been presented by Dr Jean-Philippe Montillet from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. In this paper Montillet details for the first time a possible mechanism explaining the EmDrive thrust in terms of a Mach effect.

Dr Rodal summarized this paper as:
"The RF resonant cavity thruster (EmDrive) would act as a capacitor where:
• surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates,
• electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
• a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall
• and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer.
When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor.
The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

Paper attached below.

Thank you! That explains the potential cross over comment from Prof. Woodward, then. And also ties in with his comment that he believes the "solid state" Mach Effect Thruster would likely work much better, because of "all kinds of other things going on in the EMdrive cavity", to paraphrase him.

This is also entirely consistent with the previous time I heard him talk about the EMdrive, in a radio interview. That time I believe he also said that if there is any real effect in the EMdrive, it is probably due to some type of accidental Mach Effect being generated. Which your reference to the paper above seems to just have put into some kind of solid theory.

M.E.T.:

Yes, I attended the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop and yes, the Paul that Jim referred to was I.  And I also gave a talk on the Eagleworks Lab's Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) in-vacuum test series reported in the AIAA/Journal of Propulsion and Power.  You can find my video talk a few places below Jim's on the SSI.org YouTube page.

As far as Jim's preference in MEGA drive construction goes, we will end up using the best performing approach be it the current PZT stacks, redesigned Mach Lorentz Thrusters (MLT), or a better understood EMdrive that at its heart is a MEGA drive in hiding.

BTW, Dr. Rodal has an interesting and fundamental observation on the operation of the MEGA drives that he just revealed to the MEGA drive NIAC team that will blow the doors off this business.  And yes, that is a tease...:)

Best, Paul M.

I also suspect if anything it is a type of mach effect.  When you compute the ratio of energy transferred in a collision it depends on the respective mass of the moving object and the object collided with.  One of the reasons the example with 2 steel balls the same mass when colliding transfer 100% energy.  If the masses are different less energy is transferred upon collision.

The only way for trapped light in a cavity to accelerate a cavity is if some how the light inside is effectively changing in its effective mass per wavelength.  if a collision at one end of the cavity accelerates the cavity but the collision at the other end does not allow the light to recover its energy then the light will lose energy through a 2nd order effect that is similar to the Doppler effect but different.  Eventually the light loses energy but through frequency so eventually the light is rejected from the cavity.  The cavity is limited in how much energy it can extract from the light by the narrow bandwidth of light that can exist in the cavity.  There may be some ways around this but that would be a further discussion. 

My limited knowledge on the Mach effect is that something is heavier when you push on it and lighter when you pull on it which gives a net push in one direction.  How to accomplish this in reality is not all that obvious but there are those working on it.

I suspect light may be electron positron pairs in the vacuum that act like they have zero rest mass because they annihilate each other but in reality they never disappear.  When excited in an electric field they osculate and waves travel through them giving local light a set velocity.  Possibly why you can create e-p pairs out of the vacuum with large enough electric fields.  This local velocity of light depends on the object measuring and its local e-p pairs which are attracted to it some how.  (probably in equilibrium with it in a sort of dance as virtual particles)  Transferring energy between local pairs at different velocities may be what give us the Doppler effect.

If e-p pairs are light and e-p pairs can change in mass via separation then we may have a mechanism of light to change in effective mass some how while still having a zero rest mass.  We have what "appears" to be a change in wavelength inside the EM drive cavity which may indicate some mechanism to effectively change the mass of the pairs, or possibly I'm wrong. 

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #837 on: 04/10/2017 07:20 AM »
Both deal with his responses during the Q&A on what the future application of the Mach Effect Thruster might look like. The first interesting comment was that he seemed to suggest that both an "EMdrive" or a "Solid State" version of the device might be used in future, although his inclination was towards a solid state drive, for various reasons. This was quite striking to me, as it seemed a radical departure from his previous dismissive comments regarding the EMDrive.

Or am I interpreting it incorrectly? Is his reference to an "EMDrive" type Mach Effect Thruster something different to to the resonant cavity based EMDrive that is currently the focus of so much attention? Because to me there seems to be very litte in common between the theories behind that device and the rather detailed breakdown of how a Mach Effect Thruster operates in Woodward's presentations. What is the commonality he appears to be alluding to here?

I'll let Paul answer what you asked, but I can add a valid point about the EmDrive + Mach effet thing during the conference:

According to Woodward, if Shawyer's EmDrive is genuine propellantless propulsion, it works through a Mach effect and nothing else. Sure this device involves RF waves and is very different from an array of vibrating solid-state piezoelectric discs; nevertheless at the same Estes Park conference, a paper entitled "Theory of the EM Drive in TM mode based on Mach-Lorentz theory" has been presented by Dr Jean-Philippe Montillet from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. In this paper Montillet details for the first time a possible mechanism explaining the EmDrive thrust in terms of a Mach effect.

Dr Rodal summarized this paper as:
"The RF resonant cavity thruster (EmDrive) would act as a capacitor where:
• surface currents propagate inside the cavity on the conic wall, between the two end plates,
• electromagnetic resonant modes create electric charges on each end plate
• a Mach effect is triggered by Lorentz forces from surface currents on the conic wall
• and a thrust force arise in the RF cavity, due to the variation of the electromagnetic density from evanescent waves inside the skin layer.
When a polymer insert is placed asymmetrically in the cavity, its dielectric properties result in greater asymmetry, while decreasing the cavity Q factor.
The cavity's acceleration is a function of all the above factors, and the model can explain the acceleration of the cavity with and without a dielectric."

Paper attached below.

Thank you! That explains the potential cross over comment from Prof. Woodward, then. And also ties in with his comment that he believes the "solid state" Mach Effect Thruster would likely work much better, because of "all kinds of other things going on in the EMdrive cavity", to paraphrase him.

This is also entirely consistent with the previous time I heard him talk about the EMdrive, in a radio interview. That time I believe he also said that if there is any real effect in the EMdrive, it is probably due to some type of accidental Mach Effect being generated. Which your reference to the paper above seems to just have put into some kind of solid theory.

M.E.T.:

Yes, I attended the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop and yes, the Paul that Jim referred to was I.  And I also gave a talk on the Eagleworks Lab's Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) in-vacuum test series reported in the AIAA/Journal of Propulsion and Power.  You can find my video talk a few places below Jim's on the SSI.org YouTube page.

As far as Jim's preference in MEGA drive construction goes, we will end up using the best performing approach be it the current PZT stacks, redesigned Mach Lorentz Thrusters (MLT), or a better understood EMdrive that at its heart is a MEGA drive in hiding.

BTW, Dr. Rodal has an interesting and fundamental observation on the operation of the MEGA drives that he just revealed to the MEGA drive NIAC team that will blow the doors off this business.  And yes, that is a tease...:)

Best, Paul M.

Paul

That's a hell of a tease you left us with there. Can you share any more, and if not, when will we be able to learn more about it?

On a broader note, over the years of following the Mach Effect research I've formed a bit of an impression in my mind as to its key roleplayers - rightly or wrongly. I got a sense that for much of the period of Dr. Woodward's research, you were one of his key "allies" so to speak, in the face of much derision from the mainstream.

Then, when the EMdrive arrived on the scene, I got the sense that you diverged from Dr. Woodward's point of view somewhat.

Am I correct in sensing that you guys might have moved slightly closer together again after the latest developments, as far as your views on the validity and existence of the Mach Effect are concerned? The current convergence seems to suggest that the EMDrive and Woodward Effect might both have Mach Effects at their heart. Do you share that view now, as opposed to Dr. White's QVF theories?

I'm just very interested to hear the current views of someone like yourself who has been so deeply involved in both of these camps.

And lastly, no comments or thoughts from you on the RB-47 issue? :)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8265
  • UK
  • Liked: 1339
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #838 on: 04/10/2017 07:34 AM »
A noob question I have a rather shaky understanding of the physics of this but doesn't a theory like MOND better support ideas like this than current conventional theories?
« Last Edit: 04/10/2017 07:35 AM by Star One »

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 927
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #839 on: 04/10/2017 11:41 AM »
I suspect light may be electron positron pairs in the vacuum that act like they have zero rest mass because they annihilate each other but in reality they never disappear.  When excited in an electric field they osculate and waves travel through them giving local light a set velocity.  Possibly why you can create e-p pairs out of the vacuum with large enough electric fields.  This local velocity of light depends on the object measuring and its local e-p pairs which are attracted to it some how.  (probably in equilibrium with it in a sort of dance as virtual particles)  Transferring energy between local pairs at different velocities may be what give us the Doppler effect.

If e-p pairs are light and e-p pairs can change in mass via separation then we may have a mechanism of light to change in effective mass some how while still having a zero rest mass.  We have what "appears" to be a change in wavelength inside the EM drive cavity which may indicate some mechanism to effectively change the mass of the pairs, or possibly I'm wrong.

@dustinthewind, do you think antimatter has a negative rest mass? In order for your model to work, it is my understanding it has to, since you are claiming that a photon is the combination of an electron (of positive mass) and a positron into a single zero-rest mass particle.

Besides this problem, a single photon can't produce an e-p pair alone. Pair production involves other quanta. And put the other way, the annihilation of an electron with a positron does not produce one, but two photons propagating in two opposite directions.

Theoretically, antimatter shouldn't have a negative energy, hence it would not have a negative rest mass. Indeed the standard model indicates that Dirac's antiparticles, i.e. normal particles with charge conjugation (or C-symmetry) like antiprotons, antineutrons, positrons, antineutrinos… have positive energy and mass.

However when one extend the standard model (which basically only takes into account positive energy particles as an axiom, because of Hermann Bondi's Runaway Paradox) using the complete Poincaré group, i.e. including all particles, those running forward in time but also those running backward in time), a new kind of particles appears: Feynman's antimatter (PT-symmetry of normal matter) but that exotic matter has never been observed.

A fundamental trick here is that T-symmetry translates as inversion of energy, and thus the inversion of mass (as -m = -E/c2). Such negative-energy particles cannot be observed because emitting negative energy photons which evolve along their own geodesics in their own conjugated metric, among us but somewhat "parallel" to us, our eyes and our instruments can't see them although they are everywhere in the universe. But we could feel and map that exotic matter through its gravitational interaction on our own: it is incidentally a candidate for dark matter (an antigravitational one).

I don't know how this dual metric scheme, emerging from two conjugated Einstein field equations, would match with Woodward's Mach effect, especially if integrated within the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity (which already includes Mach effects through Feynman's gravitational absorber framework). It would be quite an interesting evolution.

Whatever, back to the topic, a few planned experiments (AEgIS, ALPHA, ASACUSA, ATRAP, GBAR) will settle the big question:
Does antimatter fall up?
« Last Edit: 04/10/2017 12:09 PM by flux_capacitor »