Anyone now how far back I have to go to find info RE what energy is actually being dissipated by the device in what form? Mass, deg C rise, V and I applied, etc?I've uncovered an idiot claiming it must be withstanding about 1.23 MW/pound of brass ration mass involved. I know he is doing his dimensional analysis wrong, but I don't know where to start from correctly.IOW, what's the best way to get on the mailing list?
I was wondering. Why not use an acoustic gas inside a cavity with some kind of audio device to achieve the desired mass displacement? (speaker in a cavity similarly) Would the Q be too low? (too much energy loss?) Pressure differences might become problematic? (maybe not with strong walls). Not enough mass to be accelerated? (larger displacements? velocities, accelerations?, heating problems?)They would just need to introduce two or more frequencies.
My current opinion on the recent results, based on some quick simulations, is that using the brass washers has greatly reduced one of the critical degrees of freedom necessary to create the first "thrust" signal. That has produced another signal that happens to be of greater magnitude, but is still simply an "edge-case" type of oscillation. More tests are needed.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 09/27/2018 06:50 amI was wondering. Why not use an acoustic gas inside a cavity with some kind of audio device to achieve the desired mass displacement? (speaker in a cavity similarly) Would the Q be too low? (too much energy loss?) Pressure differences might become problematic? (maybe not with strong walls). Not enough mass to be accelerated? (larger displacements? velocities, accelerations?, heating problems?)They would just need to introduce two or more frequencies.I think it was Tajmar who said there was a need for "bulk coupling" - ie. solids work best, because all the mass is stuck together and has to move in unison.
I think there is a lot of confusing talk like 'need for bulk coupling'...Consequently resonating a gas would also have the mach-effect, but it is very hard to make that asymetric: storing and releasing the energy when the acceleration is one way, but not in the opposite direction.
Quote from: soms42 on 10/31/2018 07:29 pmI think there is a lot of confusing talk like 'need for bulk coupling'...Consequently resonating a gas would also have the mach-effect, but it is very hard to make that asymetric: storing and releasing the energy when the acceleration is one way, but not in the opposite direction.To me, that sounds the same as saying only a solid, due to its bulk coupling, can provide the required behavior.A fluid, by its very nature, cannot do it - whether liquid or gas or any other type of fluid, like electrons in a conductor (which is what Woodward's original attempts used.)
Quote from: sanman on 10/31/2018 07:48 pmQuote from: soms42 on 10/31/2018 07:29 pmI think there is a lot of confusing talk like 'need for bulk coupling'...Consequently resonating a gas would also have the mach-effect, but it is very hard to make that asymetric: storing and releasing the energy when the acceleration is one way, but not in the opposite direction.To me, that sounds the same as saying only a solid, due to its bulk coupling, can provide the required behavior.A fluid, by its very nature, cannot do it - whether liquid or gas or any other type of fluid, like electrons in a conductor (which is what Woodward's original attempts used.)Yes it looks like only a solid can do this, but i wonder: compressing a gas will also store energy, so why wouldn't a resonating gas-collomn show a mach-effect? As long as the actual gas-molecules move back and forth (not only a wave but actual gas-flow), it should show a mach-effect. The effect unfortunately is symetric so the average is zero (probably except for a very small deviation in the expected resonance frequency). Perhaps a 'half-pipe' would work? There will be a lot of friction though.
Sufficed to say, Jim's claim that his torsional pendulum can ONLY move to the side if acted upon by real thrust or an outside force is just not the case. There are several ways to trick a torsion pendulum and using multi-body oscillators is one of the most obvious.
I read your email that instead of just working out your differences with the author, that posting to NSF was in order.
Moving on to the simulation...here are four or five related requirements for quality research: theory, experiment, Modeling and simulation. The peer review process at the highest levels requires a review of each area...simulation is a tool, not an end in itself. The fifth area is animation which is built-in to many simulators these days.
Most of the aerospace software for simulation is of significantly higher quality than the software used. The reason for using Solidworks and COMSOL was to be able to provide deliverables to aerospace firms. Matlab and Simulink are also a good start. Compatibility, precision, accuracy, scaling, software tools, engineering/physics capabilities are a few of the reasons for selecting Solidworks and COMSOL. I could argue other high end programs and add-on software. Converting the Autodesk simulation to Solidworks and COMSOL for testing will be needed at some point. Results may prove even more revealing.IMHO the simulator used is probably ok but requires an unnecessary learning curve or excessive conversion to the physicists and engineers who are suppose to be your audience. It is not an acceptable deliverable to NASA. Or other research especially for the complexity and breadth of physics. See if Autodesk can be moved up to COMSOL simulation.
Autodesk is not known usually for research quality tools and therefore, is not even considered for research in physics, especially in the complex environment of acoustic, electromagnetic and gravitation. Nice for the classroom and simple demonstrations; not for the depth and complexity required in basic research for a mesoscopic effort involving gravitation and quantum mechanics. Screws, yes. EM and Gravitational effects, no.It appears the simulation was built-up only so far to that of mechanical resonance - no EM, no gravitational effort, and that stiction , aka stick-slip or slip-stick, was found to be significant. Bravo! Drill down but continue to add to the simulation such that you have both device details as well as the balance sensor details. Check your assumptions at this level against the real deal of a MEGA. And when you build the full system, check again.
Is there an issue with your simulation? Yes. IMHO an incomplete simulation that was insufficient to draw conclusions from and exhuberant extrapolation during an incremental build that lacked interactive communication with the prime theorist and experimentalist who happens to be the designer/builder as well as the Principle Investigator of leading a team of PhDs and propulsion experts.
Without building the entire device and experimental setup too incorporating all the nuances, the research is not about Woodward’s work; i=the simulation is only about a Newtonian stiction engine that produces comparative thrust. The more difficult challenge is to determine how that thrust that meets the nonlinear experimental data for the past seven years; the current simulation does not IMHO.
So roll up the sleeves. You started this, a good thing since the team has not had the time or resources to do extensive simulations. Carry on and carry through.