Quote from: WarpTech on 01/10/2018 03:02 amQuote from: dustinthewind on 01/10/2018 01:10 amI am not sure this will help but I noticed your signal looked very similar to the displacement signal I was supposing might contribute to the mach effect. I circled the signal in red and it is the purple signal. In the image of my plot (blue displacement signal) I added in the original signal but I have found if you modify the 2nd and successive signal terms, (here I use 5 signals) it amplifies displacement/acceleration at the top, and minimize deceleration/displacement below. Successive terms seem to approach max 2 top and 1/2 bottom. Probably some other series that would accomplish even more drastic effects.The red plot is of a simple sin wave. Not really sure how useful this will be as it seems you suggest the material is responsible for the 2nd wave introduced via electrostriction. Isn't maximizing electrostriction in a material maximizing its expansion on application of an electric field? So the objective is to maximize displacement per applied electric field? Am I wrong in suspecting the heavier mass provides an anchor mass that is less accelerated while the other mass is more accelerated? The more accelerated (aluminum) mass takes the brunt of the effect of asymmetric acceleration providing the actual mach effect?What would happen if you just introduced your own mix of frequencies for physical displacement via each individual disk (5 disks 5 separate frequencies). - would you be combating the electrostriction effect or would there be a way to make it work?with each signal being out of phase pi/2 or 90 degrees it some how seems familiar to a phased array but I don't quite see how. Your waveform is very interesting. That looks like the ideal "output" displacement, but I don't know that this is what we will get for output if that waveform was used as the input. In my oscillogram, the yellow trace is the input current. You can see the sinewave is collapsing at the top because my amplifier + transformer are maxed out. I have some heavier wire and a current sensor coming next week so I can maximize the power to the MEGA. In the end, I hope to apply nearly 800W of power.You are correct, that the material is providing the 2nd harmonic. The electrostriction is depending on the electric field squared, E2, where the piezoelectric effect only depends on E. This makes the response of the PZT disk asymmetrical, as required for the Mach effect. The material is not going to provide all those other harmonics you are using.Your other ideas are correct. The mass difference makes lightweight side dissipate more power. Power flow is asymmetrical.IMO, applying multiple frequencies to multiple stacks probably has some advantages. The electrostriction effect seems to go away when it gets hot.If I understand your correctly, you tried 2 methods. method 1 is you apply a single sinusoidal voltage to the entire stack and the electrostriction provides the 2nd harmonic but you are encountering rapid heating which destroys the phase of the 2nd harmonic. method 2 or (4.) is you ignore the overheating of the electrostriction effect (let it heat up - go out of phase) and directly put in the 2 harmonic to force at 2f so that it has the desired displacement wave form, regardless of over heating. If this is true then when you get your 2nd frequency just right with the phase adjustment signal at 2f, if you introduce a 3rd harmonic frequency at about 3*f where f is the original frequency then the stack might provide the 4th frequency at 6f also? (not sure this would work.) might need a 4th signal at 6f to adjust the phase also.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 01/10/2018 01:10 amI am not sure this will help but I noticed your signal looked very similar to the displacement signal I was supposing might contribute to the mach effect. I circled the signal in red and it is the purple signal. In the image of my plot (blue displacement signal) I added in the original signal but I have found if you modify the 2nd and successive signal terms, (here I use 5 signals) it amplifies displacement/acceleration at the top, and minimize deceleration/displacement below. Successive terms seem to approach max 2 top and 1/2 bottom. Probably some other series that would accomplish even more drastic effects.The red plot is of a simple sin wave. Not really sure how useful this will be as it seems you suggest the material is responsible for the 2nd wave introduced via electrostriction. Isn't maximizing electrostriction in a material maximizing its expansion on application of an electric field? So the objective is to maximize displacement per applied electric field? Am I wrong in suspecting the heavier mass provides an anchor mass that is less accelerated while the other mass is more accelerated? The more accelerated (aluminum) mass takes the brunt of the effect of asymmetric acceleration providing the actual mach effect?What would happen if you just introduced your own mix of frequencies for physical displacement via each individual disk (5 disks 5 separate frequencies). - would you be combating the electrostriction effect or would there be a way to make it work?with each signal being out of phase pi/2 or 90 degrees it some how seems familiar to a phased array but I don't quite see how. Your waveform is very interesting. That looks like the ideal "output" displacement, but I don't know that this is what we will get for output if that waveform was used as the input. In my oscillogram, the yellow trace is the input current. You can see the sinewave is collapsing at the top because my amplifier + transformer are maxed out. I have some heavier wire and a current sensor coming next week so I can maximize the power to the MEGA. In the end, I hope to apply nearly 800W of power.You are correct, that the material is providing the 2nd harmonic. The electrostriction is depending on the electric field squared, E2, where the piezoelectric effect only depends on E. This makes the response of the PZT disk asymmetrical, as required for the Mach effect. The material is not going to provide all those other harmonics you are using.Your other ideas are correct. The mass difference makes lightweight side dissipate more power. Power flow is asymmetrical.IMO, applying multiple frequencies to multiple stacks probably has some advantages. The electrostriction effect seems to go away when it gets hot.
I am not sure this will help but I noticed your signal looked very similar to the displacement signal I was supposing might contribute to the mach effect. I circled the signal in red and it is the purple signal. In the image of my plot (blue displacement signal) I added in the original signal but I have found if you modify the 2nd and successive signal terms, (here I use 5 signals) it amplifies displacement/acceleration at the top, and minimize deceleration/displacement below. Successive terms seem to approach max 2 top and 1/2 bottom. Probably some other series that would accomplish even more drastic effects.The red plot is of a simple sin wave. Not really sure how useful this will be as it seems you suggest the material is responsible for the 2nd wave introduced via electrostriction. Isn't maximizing electrostriction in a material maximizing its expansion on application of an electric field? So the objective is to maximize displacement per applied electric field? Am I wrong in suspecting the heavier mass provides an anchor mass that is less accelerated while the other mass is more accelerated? The more accelerated (aluminum) mass takes the brunt of the effect of asymmetric acceleration providing the actual mach effect?What would happen if you just introduced your own mix of frequencies for physical displacement via each individual disk (5 disks 5 separate frequencies). - would you be combating the electrostriction effect or would there be a way to make it work?with each signal being out of phase pi/2 or 90 degrees it some how seems familiar to a phased array but I don't quite see how.
Warp Tech -Just trying to keep things straight here. With your test device, what readings would validate or falsify your current theory?
3. The 1st space derivate of v2 results in a gradient in the power and kinetic energy across the stack. The light-weight end vibrates much faster than the heavy end. If this results in any thrust, it would be much greater than a photon rocket and would work while shielded by a grounded Faraday cage. The direction would not be reversible because the gradient would always be in the same direction.The first 2 validate QED, not my theory. This is textbook stuff. The 3rd would be surprising.
Again, seeking clarity here:Quote3. The 1st space derivate of v2 results in a gradient in the power and kinetic energy across the stack. The light-weight end vibrates much faster than the heavy end. If this results in any thrust, it would be much greater than a photon rocket and would work while shielded by a grounded Faraday cage. The direction would not be reversible because the gradient would always be in the same direction.The first 2 validate QED, not my theory. This is textbook stuff. The 3rd would be surprising.How surprising? Could it be shoehorned into existing physics with trivial adjustments?Or does this imply CoE or CoM issues? Or other significant physics issues?
I just finished winding the 2 transformers. The resistors have arrived and the project box will be here tomorrow. The shielded cable will be here mid week. I also ordered 10 more disks. ($$) so I can build up the 2nd MEGA to match. I hope to start building the rotary test rig next weekend.Here is the test setup. The amplifier is powered by an AC/DC power supply but can also be operated from a car battery.
Quote from: WarpTech on 01/14/2018 04:35 pmI just finished winding the 2 transformers. The resistors have arrived and the project box will be here tomorrow. The shielded cable will be here mid week. I also ordered 10 more disks. ($$) so I can build up the 2nd MEGA to match. I hope to start building the rotary test rig next weekend.Here is the test setup. The amplifier is powered by an AC/DC power supply but can also be operated from a car battery.Hi Todd,i am a little skeptical about the 43 KHz driven by a car hifi amplifier. These circuits are optimized for low frequencies and may contain filters with cut off frequencies around 20 KHz or even lower. Did you measure the peak to peak voltage and /or power at that frequency?Did you modify the anplifier to get good power levels for over 40 KHz?Just another question: The two resistors(? / or choke?) labeled as "10mΩ, 5W", what does the "m" stands for milli or Mega?
i am a little skeptical about the 43 KHz driven by a car hifi amplifier. These circuits are optimized for low frequencies and may contain filters with cut off frequencies around 20 KHz or even lower. Did you measure the peak to peak voltage and /or power at that frequency?Did you modify the anplifier to get good power levels for over 40 KHz?
Quote from: X_RaY on 01/15/2018 08:02 pmi am a little skeptical about the 43 KHz driven by a car hifi amplifier. These circuits are optimized for low frequencies and may contain filters with cut off frequencies around 20 KHz or even lower. Did you measure the peak to peak voltage and /or power at that frequency?Did you modify the anplifier to get good power levels for over 40 KHz?I've seen ultrasonic speakers (40kHz) driven by a standard hifi amplifier. All modern audio amplifiers will have a flat frequency response over the audio range from 20Hz to 20kHz, but there are also many higher frequency harmonics in the signal that must be preserved so as not to introduce distortion. These high frequency harmonics are present up to 10Mhz. At 43kHz, there will probably be less gain, but I doubt the hifi amplifier sharply cuts off the high frequencies at 20kHz. All that said, the voltage level from hifi amplifiers is way too low for the impedance of the piezo stack. If 1A output current is sufficient, I would buy the MX200 high performance piezo driver listed here. It can still be powered using two 12V or one 24V lipo battery. Simply remove the fan and add a large heat sink: https://www.piezodrive.com/modules/
I've seen ultrasonic speakers (40kHz) driven by a standard hifi amplifier. All modern audio amplifiers will have a flat frequency response over the audio range from 20Hz to 20kHz, but there are also many higher frequency harmonics in the signal that must be preserved so as not to introduce distortion.
I now have two MEGA's again. Both have two stacks of 4 disks, and 1 stack of 2 disks to monitor the displacement. I have cleaned them up and attached 4-wire 22AWG "shielded" cables to each, so there should be no Lorentz forces on the wires once everything is grounded.GRN - Common Source / GroundBLK - Bottom 4 stack - Channel 1RED - Middle 4 stack - Channel 2WHT - Top 2 stack / FeedbackI'm setting up an hanging rotary test rig next. For now, I'm not going to put the MEGA's in a box. I want to see if there is thrust in "air" without blocking the exhaust photons from the output. Putting it in the box is part of the test to see if the thrust is affected, so start simple. The resistors shown are the .01 Ohm current sense resistors. I can monitor the current on each channel this way. I will be mounting the XFMR's and Resistors to this Vector board as soon as I get some board-to-cable connectors.
Todd:How are you controlling the phase of the 1w and 2w acoustic sine-wave signals being driven in your PZT stacks? IMO Jim Woodward's lack of dramatic performance from his MEGA-drives rests squarely in not being able to adequately control AND maintain the required acoustical phase relationship between these two acoustic signals in the stacks, where maximum thrust occurs at 90-degrees phase shift and zero thrust occurs at 0-degree phase shift. Jim's ex-graduate student, Tom Mahood and Woodward as well have already explored this 2-acoustic signal, phase control in PZT stacks problem, see attached papers. I also summed it up in my STAIF-2004 paper as follows:"Another issue though with Woodward’s PZT test articles was that they were very difficult to keep operating and garnering successful data runs. After searching for a number of explanations for why these PZT based stacks were so difficult to use, Woodward and his colleagues found that the most probable cause for their erratic behavior was due to the use of piezoelectric crystals with “ageing” memory characteristics and relying on ultrasonic pressure waves to force rectify the W-E mass fluctuations and/or reductions into a uni-direction force or weight reduction. The transient mass fluctuations propagate through the PZT stack crystals at some substantial percentage of the speed of light in lockstep with the applied E-field, while the ultrasonic force rectification waves are traveling through the PZT crystals at the speed of sound through that same material, which are some 5 orders of magnitude slower than the applied E-field. These very large velocity differentials between the E-field driven transient mass fluctuations and the much slower ultrasonic standing waves propagating back and forth in the PZT crystal stack structure, generated large variations in the phase relationship between these two signals."And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.Best, Paul M.
And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.Best, Paul M.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 01/21/2018 03:08 pmAnd this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.Best, Paul M.Paul, Regarding the MLT design, what do you personally think of Buldrini's (and now Woodward's) "bulk acceleration conjecture" referenced in this earlier post?
Quote from: Star-Drive on 01/21/2018 03:08 pmTodd:How are you controlling the phase of the 1w and 2w acoustic sine-wave signals being driven in your PZT stacks? IMO Jim Woodward's lack of dramatic performance from his MEGA-drives rests squarely in not being able to adequately control AND maintain the required acoustical phase relationship between these two acoustic signals in the stacks, where maximum thrust occurs at 90-degrees phase shift and zero thrust occurs at 0-degree phase shift. Jim's ex-graduate student, Tom Mahood and Woodward as well have already explored this 2-acoustic signal, phase control in PZT stacks problem, see attached papers. I also summed it up in my STAIF-2004 paper as follows:"Another issue though with Woodward’s PZT test articles was that they were very difficult to keep operating and garnering successful data runs. After searching for a number of explanations for why these PZT based stacks were so difficult to use, Woodward and his colleagues found that the most probable cause for their erratic behavior was due to the use of piezoelectric crystals with “ageing” memory characteristics and relying on ultrasonic pressure waves to force rectify the W-E mass fluctuations and/or reductions into a uni-direction force or weight reduction. The transient mass fluctuations propagate through the PZT stack crystals at some substantial percentage of the speed of light in lockstep with the applied E-field, while the ultrasonic force rectification waves are traveling through the PZT crystals at the speed of sound through that same material, which are some 5 orders of magnitude slower than the applied E-field. These very large velocity differentials between the E-field driven transient mass fluctuations and the much slower ultrasonic standing waves propagating back and forth in the PZT crystal stack structure, generated large variations in the phase relationship between these two signals."And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.Best, Paul M.At the moment, I do not have a control circuit yet. My original idea will not work because the inductance of the PZT stack is almost non-existant. The energy does not circulate without an external inductor. For my current tests, I have the 2 channel waveform generator. I have two ways to configure this for the test rig.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1470425;image1. Each MEGA is driven at a single frequency. Channel 1 powers MEGA 1 and channel 2 powers MEGA 2. For this, I rely on the electrostriction to provide the 2nd harmonic. I can monitor the waveform using the displacement of the 2-disk stack.2. I can power one 4 disk stack with channel 1 at w, and the 2nd 4 disk stack with channel 2 at 2w. From what I've seen, this does not drift out of range as fast as the electrostriction. It appears to be controlled by adjusting the phase of one of the generators. I will do this manually as I observe the feedback. The benefit of resonance is that the phase difference is zero, but with two generators I can get the right waveform at any frequency.Regarding the 90-deg phase shift. This I think is an error in the mathematics description. The scalar "power" is radiated in both directions but is always positive. The 90-deg phase difference makes it appear that the force is also rectified, but that is the wrong conclusion. The two must be in-phase so that radiation is rectified. The force will then be uni-directional. I'll review the papers you attached.Thanks!
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 01/21/2018 03:27 pmQuote from: Star-Drive on 01/21/2018 03:08 pmAnd this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.Best, Paul M.Paul, Regarding the MLT design, what do you personally think of Buldrini's (and now Woodward's) "bulk acceleration conjecture" referenced in this earlier post?Flux Capacitor:IMO, the a^2 Bulk Acceleration conjecture by Nembo Buldrini in 2008 and later codified by Woodward and Fearn in 2010 and 2012, see attached papers, is the key requirement to making the Mach Effect work in these gravity/inertia (G/I) thrusters. That is because this bulk acceleration a^2 term multiplies all the other thrust generation variables in the M-E thrust equation. No bulk acceleration of the energy storing dielectric, no mass or vacuum density fluctuations from the M-E should be observed.