Quote from: Augmentor on 04/06/2018 07:46 pmThere are two types of phased arrays - emitter array and thrusters arrays.In the emitter, the RF or other EM wave, even photons and gravitons, a 2D array is the usually limit although so-called parasitic arrays are really antennas.The possibility of using a 2 1/2 D array (units on cards, cards in a box) or a 3D is an issue since the materials, devices and emissions interefer with each other. Mr. Hansen spoke in 2016 at Estes Park about emitter arrays. The MET is not an emitter array. The mass-energy changes are internal only resulting in macro momentum change.In contrast, a thrust array especially built of units from MET devices (MET, MEGA, MLT) do not use propulsive emissions; MET's do not emit. In MET devices momentum is changed *without emission* .I should note that no space drive variant - MEGA or emDrive - has undergone full EMI testing for a single device let alone the standard tests for two devices. Unit EMI testing would precede any array testing.The potential of a non-emitting array is the ability to stack in 2 1/2 D or 3 D the thrusters since they do not interfere with each other. This alone is a breakthrough for MET, MEGA and other variants.When you say METs are not "emitters" - are you simply referring to the fact that they don't expel any propellant? They could be emitters in another sense - in the sense that they emit tiny gravity waves, or tiny amounts of gravitons. If you feel METs don't even do that, then can you explain why? Because something has to be emitted, in order for METs to interact with TheRestOfTheUniverse (or "gravinertial field").Nextly, if we can agree that tiny gravity waves (or tiny amounts of gravitons) are being emitted, then wouldn't these generate some kind of interference, as all such waves do?
There are two types of phased arrays - emitter array and thrusters arrays.In the emitter, the RF or other EM wave, even photons and gravitons, a 2D array is the usually limit although so-called parasitic arrays are really antennas.The possibility of using a 2 1/2 D array (units on cards, cards in a box) or a 3D is an issue since the materials, devices and emissions interefer with each other. Mr. Hansen spoke in 2016 at Estes Park about emitter arrays. The MET is not an emitter array. The mass-energy changes are internal only resulting in macro momentum change.In contrast, a thrust array especially built of units from MET devices (MET, MEGA, MLT) do not use propulsive emissions; MET's do not emit. In MET devices momentum is changed *without emission* .I should note that no space drive variant - MEGA or emDrive - has undergone full EMI testing for a single device let alone the standard tests for two devices. Unit EMI testing would precede any array testing.The potential of a non-emitting array is the ability to stack in 2 1/2 D or 3 D the thrusters since they do not interfere with each other. This alone is a breakthrough for MET, MEGA and other variants.
Well, that question is a bit presumptuous. Where is the theory to support the scalability using arrays. Probably should start with that question before looking to experiments. And again, there are three possible types of arrays - no emission, emits massless particles (photon, graviton), and emits particles (fermions and bosons).D
Where's the lab data that shows that these devices have a massive scaling property, anyway?
Quote from: RotoSequence on 04/07/2018 01:39 amWhere's the lab data that shows that these devices have a massive scaling property, anyway? RotoSequence:The strongest data for MET thrust scaling is the applied dielectric voltage to the 4th power (V^4) data as Woodward and Fearn described in their 2016 Estes Park presentations and have further reinforced since then. I also found a limited number of MEGA-drive tests in 2012 by Woodward that demonstrated the omega to the six (w^6) frequency scaling that was expressed when Woodward's SM111 stack started to generate 4th harmonic modulations due to "just-so" stack preload tuning that controls the expression of its electrostrictive response and also the stack's relative humidity history. This was expressed when the SM111 stack's force output increased from its nominal 2-to-3uN at ~35 kHz drive frequency with its electrostrictive generated 70kHz force rectification signal to over 130 uN when its ~140 kHz 4th harmonic was being generated. Sadly Woodward could never get this set of 4th harmonic electrostrictive preload and relative humidity circumstances to repeat themselves since then. That will hopefully change now since his team has won the NIAC Phase-II grant that will permit the acquisition of a complete two channel drive system with a frequency range of from 20 kHz up to 500 kHz.BTW, Woodward & Fearn's MEGA-Drive thrust scaling equation is defined in the attached 2012 JPC-Templ paper, on page 8, equation 21. (Added 04/07/2018)BTW-2, one of the new NIAC Phase-II MEGA-drive collaborators has access to a very good PSV-400 scanning vibrometer, see attached data sheet, that should allow much better analytical measurements of the displacement variable x^3 in Woodward & Fearn's MEGA-drive force equation #21. However please note that all these variables in this MEGA-drive force equation are NOT independent and they all have variable inter-dependencies dependent on the engineering details of the MEGA-drive build in question.
Sanman:The Mach-Effect relies on locally induced transient interactions with the cosmological gravitational field AKA spacetime that gives rise to the origins of inertia, see Bondi's and Woodward's essays on same, of which I've appended two. So in the end analysis, a Mach-Effect drive of whatever variant, has to generate ripples in spacetime that instantaneously interacts with ALL the mass-energy in the causally connected universe, (all the mass-energy inside the special relativity (SR) light cone since the big bang), that simultaneously back reacts on the locally generated ripple in spacetime. (Ref Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces and John Cramer's Transactional interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM) or TIQM.) The only way known to me that you can detect and measure such a spherical spacetime distortion wavefront in the lab is to use a second operational Mach-Effect device and look for force beats between the two operating devices.Best, Paul M
Quote from: Star-Drive on 04/07/2018 03:02 pmSanman:The Mach-Effect relies on locally induced transient interactions with the cosmological gravitational field AKA spacetime that gives rise to the origins of inertia, see Bondi's and Woodward's essays on same, of which I've appended two. So in the end analysis, a Mach-Effect drive of whatever variant, has to generate ripples in spacetime that instantaneously interacts with ALL the mass-energy in the causally connected universe, (all the mass-energy inside the special relativity (SR) light cone since the big bang), that simultaneously back reacts on the locally generated ripple in spacetime. (Ref Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces and John Cramer's Transactional interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM) or TIQM.) The only way known to me that you can detect and measure such a spherical spacetime distortion wavefront in the lab is to use a second operational Mach-Effect device and look for force beats between the two operating devices.Best, Paul MPaul, Thanks for that - it gives some food for thought. I then wonder if 2 or more METs could be used to validate each others' performance. An array of them might be particularly interesting, because if phased array effects were to manifest themselves, then that would be a stronger indication of superpositional waves being generated.But getting back to comments made @ NIAC Sep-2017 about how Mach Effect coupling would be even stronger at higher velocities - do you have any opinions on the implications/consequences of this? My speculation is that increase in coupling due to increase in velocity means that each oscillation cycle would exert a stronger pull or jerk. This means that as you travel progressively faster, then your ride becomes progressively bumpier or jerkier. Is there a possibility that without any mitigating steps, then at some sufficiently high velocity your spacecraft could be shaken apart?
Sanman:"But getting back to comments made @ NIAC Sep-2017 about how Mach Effect coupling would be even stronger at higher velocities - do you have any opinions on the implications/consequences of this?"Sorry but no I don't. Apparently I missed that meeting, but at first blush how can that occur since the boundary for the cosmological mass-energy shell will always be a semi-fixed ~13.7 billion light-years away from the vehicle no matter what its relative velocity is to your arbitrarily chosen frame of reference. Best, Paul M.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 04/09/2018 03:39 pmSanman:"But getting back to comments made @ NIAC Sep-2017 about how Mach Effect coupling would be even stronger at higher velocities - do you have any opinions on the implications/consequences of this?"Sorry but no I don't. Apparently I missed that meeting, but at first blush how can that occur since the boundary for the cosmological mass-energy shell will always be a semi-fixed ~13.7 billion light-years away from the vehicle no matter what its relative velocity is to your arbitrarily chosen frame of reference. Best, Paul M.Apologies, I should have included the video for reference - please look at the exchange which occurs between Dr Fearn and questioner @ 17:50 - 19:52It seems to be said that the faster you travel, the better the Mach Effect coupling between the thruster and the Rest-Of-The-Universe. What are the consequences of that? Can you have too much of a "good thing"? Can it result in any choppiness or vibrational issues?
However, ALL of the MET drive's developed kinetic energy can only come from the drive's interactions with the cosmological gravitational & inertial (G/I) field, AKA spacetime, with the local vehicle power supply providing only the thermodynamic losses in the MET drive required to establish the G/I field gradient used to accelerate the vehicle.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 04/09/2018 07:01 pmHowever, ALL of the MET drive's developed kinetic energy can only come from the drive's interactions with the cosmological gravitational & inertial (G/I) field, AKA spacetime, with the local vehicle power supply providing only the thermodynamic losses in the MET drive required to establish the G/I field gradient used to accelerate the vehicle.This is the part that baffles me. If an MET drive can extract energy from a "cosmological gravitational & inertial (G/I) field" why aren't Woodward, et al pitching this to utility companies? It is the functional equivalent of a free energy device, is it not?
Quote from: Jim Davis on 04/09/2018 07:53 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 04/09/2018 07:01 pmHowever, ALL of the MET drive's developed kinetic energy can only come from the drive's interactions with the cosmological gravitational & inertial (G/I) field, AKA spacetime, with the local vehicle power supply providing only the thermodynamic losses in the MET drive required to establish the G/I field gradient used to accelerate the vehicle.This is the part that baffles me. If an MET drive can extract energy from a "cosmological gravitational & inertial (G/I) field" why aren't Woodward, et al pitching this to utility companies? It is the functional equivalent of a free energy device, is it not? I was thinking about that too - is it possible that the oscillating device can only convert accelerative force into the energy output, rather than merely converting velocity into energy output? (assuming it can operate in an inverse mode)So if a force is being applied to accelerate the device while its oscillation is going on, then that applied force might result in slightly less acceleration than would occur if the device was not oscillating, and meanwhile some EMF feedback might occur perhaps?So it's then worth asking if the inverse mode of operation could also be used for testing and validation of the basic Mach Effect. It's hard to measure micro-newtons of force, but maybe it's not as hard to measure micro-volts of EMF feedback while conducting the inverse of the same experiment?
In this video from today's meeting at Stanford, Prof. Heidi Fearn has two minutes or so beginning at ~2:43:43 where she talks about the Mach Effect drive and uses a simple analogy to describe it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3GiN-tWAV_k
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/14/2018 02:34 amIn this video from today's meeting at Stanford, Prof. Heidi Fearn has two minutes or so beginning at ~2:43:43 where she talks about the Mach Effect drive and uses a simple analogy to describe it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3GiN-tWAV_kHere's a direct link for people to jump to the spot:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GiN-tWAV_k#t=2h43m44s(Btw, does her oil drop analogy sound similar to the one made for Pilot Wave theory? Interesting how that was also used for rationalizing EMdrive)
Quote from: sanman on 04/14/2018 09:02 pmQuote from: HMXHMX on 04/14/2018 02:34 amIn this video from today's meeting at Stanford, Prof. Heidi Fearn has two minutes or so beginning at ~2:43:43 where she talks about the Mach Effect drive and uses a simple analogy to describe it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3GiN-tWAV_kHere's a direct link for people to jump to the spot:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GiN-tWAV_k#t=2h43m44s(Btw, does her oil drop analogy sound similar to the one made for Pilot Wave theory? Interesting how that was also used for rationalizing EMdrive)maybe the video was changed, because there is no talk going on at 2h43m. next stop starts only 1 hour later, at 3:40, with Dr Sonny White.