Quote from: frobnicat on 10/05/2014 02:37 pmAlso (too lazy to search) it was made mention to AC...I thought it was all AC. Where's the DC coming from?
Also (too lazy to search) it was made mention to AC...
4) Of course not. Sonny would never agree to test one of Woodward's designs. All of the ZPFers believe they are in competition with M-E physics. Despite Sonny has had MLT's on the balance at Eagle, he would NEVER run them with AC the way they were designed. The QVF model states these ought to produce thrust when driven with DC, and that is all he checked. IIUC, he got a null result except for the switching transients which ought to produce thrust according to M-E theory.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/06/2014 12:54 amQuote from: frobnicat on 10/05/2014 02:37 pmAlso (too lazy to search) it was made mention to AC...I thought it was all AC. Where's the DC coming from?From this post :Quote from: Ron Stahl on 09/27/2014 03:20 pm4) Of course not. Sonny would never agree to test one of Woodward's designs. All of the ZPFers believe they are in competition with M-E physics. Despite Sonny has had MLT's on the balance at Eagle, he would NEVER run them with AC the way they were designed. The QVF model states these ought to produce thrust when driven with DC, and that is all he checked. IIUC, he got a null result except for the switching transients which ought to produce thrust according to M-E theory.So "White DC vs Woodward AC" if I get it. This DC wasn't clear, indeed, and I wanted to ask before... my assumption is that "DC" is stationary RF signal (not DC strictly speaking, more like RF AC at constant amplitude) and "AC" would be some kind of modulation (amplitude ?) or transient of the RF signal. What are the modulation characteristic from this Woodward's camp AC, amplitude, frequency, shape ? Anyone ?
Quote from: frobnicat on 10/05/2014 03:20 pmNow with a very very scarce medium, the amount of mass/s that can be swallowed by the thruster is so weak that it takes very high ejection speeds to get a thrust level of any significance. When the scarcity of the medium implies relativistic ejection velocities to get interesting thrust, then the fact need [my edit?] to use a medium mass at all becomes irrelevant because you put more energy as kinetic energy than the energy equivalence of harvested mass : if you have that much onboard energy to spend on kinetic energy of the jet, then just creating the rest mass (from energy) of what you are ejecting becomes a negligible term. You are almost as good with a photon rocket and ignoring the medium.Having had a propeller beanie as a kid, I hang on to that concept concept. Thanking you again, I continue:.If it is to be a ramjet, then the intake has to be physically very large. You can't make it out of matter, you'd have to somehow project a field to harvest the DM as you move thru it, and maybe condense it. You'd have to start the ramjet going somehow (boom boom Orion?), and discard that stage when the ramjet starts working.Anyhow, it would not be pushing on the quantum field, and it would have a tailpipe. I'm thinking you can't suck it up, you have to move thru it.I'm trying to visualize what a useful spacecraft might look like. Which may be uncomfortably close to speculating about benign wormholes, but hey.
Now with a very very scarce medium, the amount of mass/s that can be swallowed by the thruster is so weak that it takes very high ejection speeds to get a thrust level of any significance. When the scarcity of the medium implies relativistic ejection velocities to get interesting thrust, then the fact need [my edit?] to use a medium mass at all becomes irrelevant because you put more energy as kinetic energy than the energy equivalence of harvested mass : if you have that much onboard energy to spend on kinetic energy of the jet, then just creating the rest mass (from energy) of what you are ejecting becomes a negligible term. You are almost as good with a photon rocket and ignoring the medium.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 03:55 pmAll the rectifiers I'm familiar with use diodes. You can do it old school with tubes.Riffing on the spacecraft scale for a sec: Those tubes would be kilometers in diameter? no?
All the rectifiers I'm familiar with use diodes. You can do it old school with tubes.
Riffing on the spacecraft scale for a sec: Those tubes would be kilometers in diameter? no?
To be clear : this rectifier effect hypothesis had nothing to do with DM, was about RF AC -> DC conversion that could classically explain the results as some DC induced current loops pushing on the damping magnets.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 10:38 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 10/05/2014 10:18 pmYes, long wavelength interaction w/ a condensate of bosons acts like a phonon generation.It's in here: http://cua.mit.edu/8.422_S07/BECinDiluteGases205-214.pdfMy head hertz.Somebody call NDT!So anyway, what that all means is: if the cloud of dark matter is composed of axions AND if they have formed (as was in some axion paper back there) a Bose-Einstein condensate, one does not need enough energy to create axions, just enough to raise the state of some. If you do this the exitation propagates like a "phonon" in the condensate, which is a momentum transfer against the entire condensate (ie the "ocean to push against)Highly speculative, who wants to try a calculation ?
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 10/05/2014 10:18 pmYes, long wavelength interaction w/ a condensate of bosons acts like a phonon generation.It's in here: http://cua.mit.edu/8.422_S07/BECinDiluteGases205-214.pdfMy head hertz.Somebody call NDT!
Yes, long wavelength interaction w/ a condensate of bosons acts like a phonon generation.It's in here: http://cua.mit.edu/8.422_S07/BECinDiluteGases205-214.pdfMy head hertz.
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 10/05/2014 10:48 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 10:38 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 10/05/2014 10:18 pmYes, long wavelength interaction w/ a condensate of bosons acts like a phonon generation.It's in here: http://cua.mit.edu/8.422_S07/BECinDiluteGases205-214.pdfMy head hertz.Somebody call NDT!So anyway, what that all means is: if the cloud of dark matter is composed of axions AND if they have formed (as was in some axion paper back there) a Bose-Einstein condensate, one does not need enough energy to create axions, just enough to raise the state of some. If you do this the exitation propagates like a "phonon" in the condensate, which is a momentum transfer against the entire condensate (ie the "ocean to push against)Highly speculative, who wants to try a calculation ?mm, to "raise the state of some" naturally occurring DM is still limited by the very low density overall. A condensate could be useful, compared to a non self interacting medium, as there is some "aerodynamics", pressure waves... What would be the "speed of sound" in such a condensate, if such concept has any meaning for a Bose-Einstein condensate ? If it is much higher than the average speed of the medium then yes it could be like er, you know, air augmented double flow in jet engine, better thrust than what is accelerated primarily. Maybe a factor of 10 or 100 ? I don't see much above that, unless a condensate is like a "rigid plate" and push at one place is spread over a much large volume ?Personally, from my little calculations above, and given the likely <<1 coupling factors with DM I would still discard any explanation involving naturally occurring DM in a classical framework : not enough to account for even the weakest results at Eagle (and way off the compact drives mN better results from elsewhere).
Quote from: frobnicatTo be clear : this rectifier effect hypothesis had nothing to do with DM, was about RF AC -> DC conversion that could classically explain the results as some DC induced current loops pushing on the damping magnets.Yeah those current loops could influence the damper by virtue of charge opposition, if the thing wasn't grounded properly, and if there wasn't a feedback loop built into the damper. I don't know if either of those things is true. There really isn't enough information to make any further assumptions about this kind of stuff available from the 21 page paper. We're speculating.
With the aide of Mach and his seminal generalized interpretation of the origin of inertial mass, which informed Einstein ...
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 10:21 amWith the aide of Mach and his seminal generalized interpretation of the origin of inertial mass, which informed Einstein ...<<With the aide of Mach >> (Ernst)perhaps"With the aide of March" (Paul)we can get the damping value (N s/m) for the NASA Eagleworks inverted torsional pendulum experiments.
I estimate that an experiment could be put together for less than $2000 of parts.
... i was like message boy ...
John Fornaro had mentioned something about black hole drives
its easy
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 12:31 amI find it hard to believe he has confused mass energy [equivalent rest mass energy, I believe is what he meant] within the atom with energies of covalent bonds.They're the same thing. They both gravitate and have inertia. The scale is wildly different, but that's immaterial.
I find it hard to believe he has confused mass energy [equivalent rest mass energy, I believe is what he meant] within the atom with energies of covalent bonds.
...Remember that mass is constrained over space and energy is constrained over time! ...The particles inside have a momentum on a gradient.Another way to think of the inside of the emdrive cavity is to picture it as its own little universe with a slightly modified space manifold, such that there is an asymmetry in parity.And they really want to equalize, so the thing moves to compensate. Just like McCulloch said.Boom!Now I'm going to obsess over the charge component of CP symmetry.Phew.
Quote from: 93143 on 10/06/2014 07:06 amQuote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 12:31 amI find it hard to believe he has confused mass energy [equivalent rest mass energy, I believe is what he meant] within the atom with energies of covalent bonds.They're the same thing. They both gravitate and have inertia. The scale is wildly different, but that's immaterial.From a grammatical standpoint, it's [note spelling] all material.However, while it may indeed be factual that equivalent rest mass energy and equivalent covalent bond energy may be indifferentiable in numerical principle, that the magnitudes of the energies involved are so divergent; they are most definitely not "immaterial".