Cuddihy:"It's not clear to me, for instance, why the runs are done as a frequency sweep -- it seems like a distractor. Why not do the runs at a rectified constant frequency where the stack is most resonant? Wouldn't that provide the clearest "thrust" signal?"The problem with the constant drive frequency approach, which Woodward followed in some of his 2002 IIT test series, see attached report, is that the mechanical resonant frequency shifts with increasing PZT-Stack temperature. Since these EDO EC-65 PZT-Stack caps have a Dissipation Factor (DF) of over 2.0% and a thermal conductivity of only about 1/300 that of copper, they heat up very fast when dissipating the couple of hundreds of RF Watts driving them. So it turns out that frequency sweeping the stack over the noted 9-second runs will at least show where the stack was resonant and producing the peak thrust results without depoling it due to exceeding its Curie temperature. And it appears that the peak thrust frequency is offset from the electrical and mechanical resonant frequencies of the stack due to the electrostrictive nonlinearities in the PZT material itself and the Carvin amplifier’s output verses frequency response. A better solution would be to design a variable frequency negative feedback loop tied to the PZT Stack temperature that would automatically keep the drive frequency at or near the PZT-Stack resonant frequency with a tunable offset of XXX Hz. Care to design us one?"Why does the thrust noise trace trend up over the course of a run in a major way?"I think that is due to thermal drift in the ARC-Lite torque pendulum due to the heat being generated in the test article and being dissipated through the torque penulum's aluminum structure and bearings via IR radiation, but you need to ask Woodward for his opinion on that one as well."If the unaveraged thrust signal was about 50 times what it currently is compared to the noise, there really wouldn't be any question."OK, so you vote for a +/-50-to-100 micro-Newton output thrust using the same ARC-Lite test setup since it is currently producing ~1.3 micro-Newton, check. As a reminder my Faraday shielded MLT consistently produced a reversable +/-1,000 to 5,000 micro-Newton while it was working...Best, Paul M.Edit: Corrected typos and units
Since it is a new or unknown phenomenon that we are talking about, of course a higher standard is needed in order to be sure the cause is not a conventional source via an unknown coupling or pathway.
And engine that gives you constant 1G like that is plenty for now,
If transient mass fluctuations were being studied without the mention of applications to advanced propulsion, they would not even be regarded as an extraordinary claim.
If it's so easy to demonstrate 1 gee, then that should be demonstrated. It would be impossible to dismiss.
Quote from: IsaacKuo on 07/09/2011 12:53 amIf it's so easy to demonstrate 1 gee, then that should be demonstrated. It would be impossible to dismiss.It's not easy because it requires substantial scaling up in frequency, voltage, etc., as well as design refinements in the thrusters. (It wouldn't hurt to come up with a dielectric that lasted longer than fifteen minutes under the current experimental conditions without annealing, either.)These people are garage tinkerers, basically. They have no budget. But the projected scaling laws make the proponents think that such numbers as 1 N/W and a T/W of 10 or more are plausible with enough focused, well-funded engineering. If they're right, it isn't just space travel that would undergo a paradigm shift...Quote from: IsaacKuo on 07/09/2011 12:56 amAre there examples of mass fluctuations in mainstream physics? I'm aware of various fringe claims of mass reduction, but as I understand mainstream physics, mass is conserved.I believe this theory separates inertial mass from real or gravitating mass. Not sure how it's supposed to result in wormholes, though perhaps I've misunderstood or misremembered something...
Are there examples of mass fluctuations in mainstream physics? I'm aware of various fringe claims of mass reduction, but as I understand mainstream physics, mass is conserved.
I believe this theory separates inertial mass from real or gravitating mass.
We keep trying, but I need a data point. What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E? In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer? Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice?
It's not easy because it requires substantial scaling up in frequency, voltage, etc., as well as design refinements in the thrusters. (It wouldn't hurt to come up with a dielectric that lasted longer than fifteen minutes under the current experimental conditions without annealing, either.)These people are garage tinkerers, basically. They have no budget. But the projected scaling laws make the proponents think that such numbers as 1 N/W and a T/W of 10 or more are plausible with enough focused, well-funded engineering. If they're right, it isn't just space travel that would undergo a paradigm shift...[...]I believe this theory separates inertial mass from real or gravitating mass. Not sure how it's supposed to result in wormholes, though perhaps I've misunderstood or misremembered something...
Extraordinary, unlike ... which un-extraordinary conjecture for the origins of inertia?
QuoteI believe this theory separates inertial mass from real or gravitating mass.Right, and this is the essence of the problem with M-E propulsion. Unfortunately, it seems to be impossible to create distributions of gravitational mass/energy that would satisfy the interesting physics required to significantly alter the inertial mass. Basically, some form of negative mass/energy is needed, and classically this is forbidden.The real doozy is that if you could create negative energy matter then all sorts of exotic applications would be available. No non-standard theory of inertia is required.I think Woodward now realizes this, and hence his call out for new theory. (The current theory is the scientific version of "begging the question".)QuoteWe keep trying, but I need a data point. What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E? In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer? Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice?What would make M-E interesting to other (theoretical) physicists is a theory of it that is consistent with other known physical phenomena. The problem is that physicists have done all these pesky things called "experiments" that have tested large amounts of parameter space. If you want to extend the currently accepted knowledge of how things work, you need to find a way to not be in conflict with all those results. (Or at least show where those results were misinterpreted.)Merely having an interesting experiment is not enough in this case. Unfortunately, systematic error here seems to be orders of magnitude larger than the magnitude of the effect that is predicted. Someone needs to accurately calculate what traditional physics predicts. Remember, the real world isn't filled with spherical cows. The PZ oscillator can have non-linearities. There can be capacitance and inductance between separate parts of the apparatus giving forces much larger than those you wish to detect. The sound from the PZ can resonate in strange ways with other components. Small 1/c^2 effects can be much larger or as large as the force you wish to detect. These things are not ignorable, even though you might like them to be.Remember the Pioneer Anomaly. There were many papers written about it assuming that it must mean that something was wrong with fundamental physics. However, recently it was shown that "simple" anisotropic thermal radiation pressure was enough to explain everything about it. Nature doesn't seem to be particularly amiable in allowing new improved descriptions of herself.Of course, if you do manage to come up with a floating self-contained device. It doesn't matter what the theory is (or if indeed any exists at all); as long as it is reproducible, it is useful. Everyone is looking forward to their hoverboards and flying cars in 2015 after all...
I believe this theory separates inertial mass from real or gravitating mass. Not sure how it's supposed to result in wormholes, though perhaps I've misunderstood or misremembered something...
Quote from: kurt9 on 07/08/2011 08:24 pmA demonstration around 1 millinewton would convince me its real.GeeGee:It should occur this fall with my MLT-2011 self-contained test article.Kurt9:1.0 milli-Newton under what circumstances? My STAIF-2006 paper already demonstrated reversible MLT generated forces well over your 1.0 milli-Newton threshold requirement. Best, Paul M.
A demonstration around 1 millinewton would convince me its real.
I’m going to append the beginning of Woodward’s “Flux Capacitors and the Origins of Inertia” paper’s “Appendix A” that you already have below, as a reminder to you that the M-E does NOT violate Einstein’s Equivalence principle between gravitational and inertial effects, no matter what others on this NSF forum might think:
Physically, the lowest multipole order that is possible is the quadrapole. This unfortunately lowers the magnitude of any effect enormously. The need for a varying quadrapole moment is a very well known result. Trying to ignore it doesn't do the M-E folks any favours.
Could you point to a reference that explains or at least expands on the above for us newbs to SRT/GRT?
QuoteCould you point to a reference that explains or at least expands on the above for us newbs to SRT/GRT?The beginning of Chapter 36 of MTW's Gravitation covers it in detail. You can derive it in a couple of ways. The simplest is from conservation of momentum and angular momentum. Deeper insight comes from using topology and Brouwer's fixed point theorem to show the difference between the propagation of scalar, vector and tensor fields.Scalar fields have monopole radiation.Vector fields (electromagnetism) have dipole radiation.Tensor fields (GR) have quadrupolar radiation.