GiThruster wrote <<I was actually the first to argue that as far as I understood the theory, not just the mobile ion needed to be accelerated, but the entire lattice. Nembo Buldrini then showed this is true from the math and all of the M-E work immediately changed. I was the first to abandon the Mach Lorentz Thruster (the design Brito used) and focus on the previous design, what is now known as the Mach Effect Thruster or MET.>>If my understanding is correct, GiThruster is referring to the experiments performed by Paul March, reported in this paper: Paul March and Andrew Palfreyman. "The Woodward Effect: Math Modeling and Continued Experimental Verifications at 2 to 4 MHz" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31119.0;attach=496011, since Paul March refers to his experiments as Mach Lorentz Thruster:<<This type of electromagnetic field thruster, or Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT), purports to create a transient mass differential that is expressed in a working medium to produce a net thrust in the dielectric material contained in several capacitors.>>So, if I understand GiThruster correctly, the experiments by Paul March quoted by Dr. White in his slide 40 (in August 2013) of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf : ______________________________Paul March Woodward-Effect device tested with a load-cell-in-vertical-motion in 2004: SPECIFIC FORCE= 0.4 N/kW (up to 90 000 times larger than the photon rocket)______________________________Paul March Woodward-Effect device tested with a load-cell-in-vertical-motion in 2005: SPECIFIC FORCE= 0.3 N/kW (up to 67 000 times larger than the photon rocket) [/color]______________________________have been deemed to be an experimental artifact? as GiThruster states that "they" [meaning Woodward ?] have abandoned this kind of thruster as not being able to produce thrust because the "bulk" is not accelerated? because <<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations.>>My interpretation of all this is that GiThruster and Woodward think that the kind of MLT drive that Paul March tested in 2004/5 cannot generate sizeable thrust according to the latest interpretation (post 2008? and certainly post-Brito-2009-null experiment) of Woodward. But since Dr. White presented these results of Paul March in his slide 40 (in August 2013) as a Q-thruster, Dr. White thinks that Paul March's MLT thruster can theoretically deliver thrust according to White's Quantum Vacuum theory.
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. In part, this can be attributed to things like variation in construction details, the quality of components, and the aging of materials operated toward their electrical and mechanical limits. But something more fundamental seems to have been going on.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 a "bulk" acceleration was made. As an example, the capacitors affixed to the tines of the tuning fork in the Cramer and students' experiment made no provision for such an acceleration. Had the tuning fork been separately excited and the 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 on 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.
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.
Why not simply join the mailing list? I see no benefit from these intermediates.
Ok, John you've made way too many comments on the related threads here not to have at least followed the claimed story unless it's deliberate. The story is that the 'bulk acceleration' conjecture doesn't impact Woodward's 'source of inertia' theories at all because it's a question of correct method for engineering a 'unidirectional force generator' from the theory, not demonstrating a yeah/nay experiment that 'suggests itself' directly from the maths. ...Not saying any of that makes this smell legit. But that's the story as I understand it.
As someone who has read Jim's book. I would consider your analysis quoted above to be valid. ...Quote from: Woodward, the Stargate bookBy "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.
Now while I can understand [Rodal's] reluctance to read Dr. Woodwards book. I think this is one particular instance that you should make an exception.
It has now become apparent that:1) These experiments were not performed at NASA Eagleworks 2) Woodward's explanation for this kind of EM Drive (sometimes called MLT thruster ) has been nullified by the experiments conducted by Brito, Marini and Galian3) As stated by GiThruster and others, Woodward and his colleagues have abandoned this kind of (MLT) thruster as not being able to produce thrust because <<the "bulk" is not accelerated>>, and Woodward now states that <<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations.>>4) No Woodward MET thruster measurement has been reported to have been ever performed at NASA Eagleworks 5) Although I have never seen an actual numerical value given for what Woodward and his colleagues consider to be a high enough acceleration for in their own words <<the "bulk" to be accelerated>>, it appears from the context of publications that the drives (SFE Boeing/DARPA, Cannae and Frustum) tested by Dr. White at NASA Eagleworks, did not meet the <<"bulk" accelerated>> requirement by Woodward and therefore cannot be explained by Woodward's theory as presently stated.
...Woodward's proposed model of the electron is going to win him a Nobel Prize if it turns out to be correct, and making these thrusters work provides significant evidence to that end.
You're asking the wrong guy. You want to ask Paul. But yes. Sonny and Paul have had a dog in this hunt since way back before there was an Eagleworks. They built a Shawyer resonator years before--which is what the tapered cavity resonator is. They did this because like with the MLT, Sonny claims his QVF conjecture explains thrust from the tapered cavity resonator. I'm sure he says the same about the Cannae device.
Now, according to your understanding of the requirement of <<bulk acceleration>>, do these tests qualify as having imparted a <<bulk acceleration>> as per Woodward's theory, yes or not?
No, the MLT experiments cited by Dr. White were performed years before there was an Eagleworks and before Dr. White had even formed his QVF conjecture. The experiments were with AC, and at the time it was thought the design would generate thrust according to M-E theory.
Explanations are never nullified. They can be falsified.
Try to understand at least a little of how these devices are proposed to work if you want to critique that work.
As I have already explained, "bulk" acceleration is not a reference to a magnitude of acceleration in the ceramic. It is a reference to the entire lattice needing to accelerate rather than just the mobile ion. Here is an image of a typical perovskite structure:
In order to accelerate the entire lattice in one direction to generate M-E and thrust, you need to use a dielectric that does not include a mechanical attenuator.
You also need a reaction mass for the lattice to press against...
Obviously there would be no point publishing about old work that he knows did not provide the proper scientific controls to be taken seriously.
I'm just not familiar enough with the experimental setup to say.
If the dielectric is there to increase the reflectivity, then it's a 1/4 wave.Thanks for the Slepian. When my poor old brain integrates around an entire system I get zero.The next term would be the interatomic nuclear force ? (cold fusion anyone ?)Almost forgot, the 1 wavelength "coffee can resonator" at the earths surface has an interaction wavelength of 10^10 meters.
If the dielectric is there to increase the reflectivity, then it's a 1/4 wave.
This is semantic gobbledeegook. The explanation you have offered contains no math.
It would be most helpful if there were math associated with the proposal of how the device works, specifically a mathematical and physical definition of "bulk acceleration".
What is the mass of the illustrated PZT structure on the wiki page? Is it the same as the proposed lattice structure?
What is the expected rate of acceleration? What is the measured acceleration?
How much electrical power goes into the lattice?
The rest of the universe has been suggested, but this is not backed by any theory, and not included in your explanation.
Rodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing stray forces, but he has received no acknowledgement that this is the case. Instead, people are arguing historical narratives, and offering wordy explanations of arbitrary terms.
The discussion about lattices and attenuators is only an exercise in liguistic meaning.
Why are you arguing so strenuously on a topic that you are not "familiar enough" with?
QuoteRodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing stray forces, but he has received no acknowledgement that this is the case. Instead, people are arguing historical narratives, and offering wordy explanations of arbitrary terms. Paul addressed Dr. Rodal's concerns quite well. They're answered. ... I doubt whether anyone is going to find fault with either Eagle's work or Woodward's in this regard, as they both constantly subject themselves to careful input on their experimental setups on a regular basis.