http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdfThis paper needs accelerated peer review.
Assuming a large acceleration, ie: a terrestrial one, we can neglect this MiHsC term...
3 words. RC time constant. DC works too.You charge the cap then discharge the cap. Do it fast and you have an oscillator and it becomes RLC.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 08:51 am3 words. RC time constant. DC works too.You charge the cap then discharge the cap. Do it fast and you have an oscillator and it becomes RLC.I thought that was just on and off with the current always flowing in the same direction.
I would say, assuming it's possible at all to "burn" DM mass into energy, a few % of c, but with unlimited delta V (since feeding on the way)
But the problem is the density that is so little that indeed you have to get to a few % of c before mass flow is significant enough to get decent thrust. In this sense this is like a usual ramjet, needs some initial velocity.
Assuming we know how to field capture DM on large spans, that we know how to burn DM.
To be clear : this rectifier effect hypothesis had nothing to do with DM...
QuoteRiffing on the spacecraft scale for a sec: Those tubes would be kilometers in diameter? no?You're missing the point of the axion approach. The experiments are looking for photons appearing within an oscillating magnetic field by adding energy to theoretical dm axions. These axions were weakly interacting. Until they became photons! Do this within a metal cone and (?if the theories about cosmological derived inertial mass are true) then profit!
Riffing on the spacecraft scale for a sec: Those tubes would be kilometers in diameter? no?
Quote from: aceshigh on 10/06/2014 02:58 am... i was like message boy ...You still don't get it, do ya? Take a weekend trip to AZ, and get a sense of Yuma.
... i was like message boy ...
how I picture the most optimal shape of the apparatus...
there is only one electron in the universe
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 10:21 amhow I picture the most optimal shape of the apparatus...Your pic doesn't look like a 45 degree cone, and what are the dimensions? How about energy going in, and acceleration in the pointy direction?Solo chiedendo.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 08:08 amhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdfThis paper needs accelerated peer review.Quote from: McCulloch's paperAssuming a large acceleration, ie: a terrestrial one, we can neglect this MiHsC term...What is a "terrestrial acceleration"?I would like to read this:Gine, J., 2012. The holographic scenario, the modified inertia and the dynamicsof the universe. Mod. Phys. Lett. A. Vol. 27, No. 34, 1250208.
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/04/2014 08:36 pm...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....This is very useful information, thank you. Could you be so kind as to review the following excerpt from the NASA Eagleworks report and let us know your opinion of whether "M-E physics" can explain thrust from the following signal:p.8 <<During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler (DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.>>
...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....
Quote from: Rodal on 10/04/2014 11:09 pmQuote from: Ron Stahl on 10/04/2014 08:36 pm...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....This is very useful information, thank you. Could you be so kind as to review the following excerpt from the NASA Eagleworks report and let us know your opinion of whether "M-E physics" can explain thrust from the following signal:p.8 <<During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler (DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.>>It's DC, so M-E theory cannot explain constant thrust from such a setup unless there is significant ripple in the signal. There's no data about ripple here. M-E theory could explain thrust form switching transients here. Did this experiment generate constant thrust or thrust impulses during switching?
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 02:03 pmQuote from: Rodal on 10/05/2014 01:55 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 01:43 pmFigure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.Bingo!Yes, that's the coupling between the magnetic damping and the field from the power cable I have been writing about. Notice that the coupling is HUGE. By their own admission the "null" signal is 25% of the good signal !!!!!And they subtract the coupling "null" signal as if the problem would be linear. They do not take into account any nonlinearities. There is no finite element (No COMSOL) analysis of the magnetic coupling problemYeah all the modes show some heat or something else too.Yes, but it looks like there is something real exciting the system. The only argument I see now for an artifact would be that the magnetic damping is interacting with the power cable AND the dielectric effect. Because they measure no thrust without the dielectric. And because flipping the orientation of the dielectric flips the direction of the thrust. So if it is an artifact one would have to explain it as a result of the magnetic fields (from the damping and the power cable) interacting with the dielectric.
Quote from: Rodal on 10/05/2014 01:55 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 01:43 pmFigure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.Bingo!Yes, that's the coupling between the magnetic damping and the field from the power cable I have been writing about. Notice that the coupling is HUGE. By their own admission the "null" signal is 25% of the good signal !!!!!And they subtract the coupling "null" signal as if the problem would be linear. They do not take into account any nonlinearities. There is no finite element (No COMSOL) analysis of the magnetic coupling problemYeah all the modes show some heat or something else too.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 01:43 pmFigure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.Bingo!Yes, that's the coupling between the magnetic damping and the field from the power cable I have been writing about. Notice that the coupling is HUGE. By their own admission the "null" signal is 25% of the good signal !!!!!And they subtract the coupling "null" signal as if the problem would be linear. They do not take into account any nonlinearities. There is no finite element (No COMSOL) analysis of the magnetic coupling problem
Figure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.
Quote from: Rodal on 10/05/2014 02:13 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 02:03 pmQuote from: Rodal on 10/05/2014 01:55 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 01:43 pmFigure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.Bingo!Yes, that's the coupling between the magnetic damping and the field from the power cable I have been writing about. Notice that the coupling is HUGE. By their own admission the "null" signal is 25% of the good signal !!!!!And they subtract the coupling "null" signal as if the problem would be linear. They do not take into account any nonlinearities. There is no finite element (No COMSOL) analysis of the magnetic coupling problemYeah all the modes show some heat or something else too.Yes, but it looks like there is something real exciting the system. The only argument I see now for an artifact would be that the magnetic damping is interacting with the power cable AND the dielectric effect. Because they measure no thrust without the dielectric. And because flipping the orientation of the dielectric flips the direction of the thrust. So if it is an artifact one would have to explain it as a result of the magnetic fields (from the damping and the power cable) interacting with the dielectric.Can you explain this bolded above in further detail?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/06/2014 12:59 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/06/2014 08:08 amhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdfThis paper needs accelerated peer review.Quote from: McCulloch's paperAssuming a large acceleration, ie: a terrestrial one, we can neglect this MiHsC term...What is a "terrestrial acceleration"?I would like to read this:Gine, J., 2012. The holographic scenario, the modified inertia and the dynamicsof the universe. Mod. Phys. Lett. A. Vol. 27, No. 34, 1250208.By terrestrial acceleration I meant something typical of a mutual acceleration on Earth, eg: 9.8 m/s^2.
Okay, so they flipped the entire test article. I thought you were saying they had reoriented the dielectric inside the test article.Flipping the test article does work for isolating any coupling from the power leads, which you had previously been concerned about.