.......... 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..........
Quote from: M.E.T. on 04/07/2017 07:26 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...
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/06/2017 11:56 pmJust 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-conceptsfor our proposal "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission". Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute in Mojave, California and CalState Fullerton will be PI....
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-conceptsfor our proposal "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission". Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute in Mojave, California and CalState Fullerton will be PI.
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
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?
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.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 04/09/2017 04:11 pmThis 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: WoodwardSooner 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.
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 04/09/2017 05:44 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 04/09/2017 04:11 pmThis 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: WoodwardSooner 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.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 04/09/2017 05:52 pmQuote from: flux_capacitor on 04/09/2017 05:44 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 04/09/2017 04:11 pmThis 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: WoodwardSooner 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,
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?
Quote from: M.E.T. on 04/09/2017 09:05 pmBoth 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.
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 04/09/2017 10:55 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 04/09/2017 09:05 pmBoth 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.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 04/09/2017 11:08 pmQuote from: flux_capacitor on 04/09/2017 10:55 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 04/09/2017 09:05 pmBoth 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 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.