@WarpTechI see. I think Woodward, Fearn at al. will be interested in your findings, since your design has some improvements they wanted to implement.@sanmanQuoteAs I understand it, Woodward/Mach effect is the alleged propulsive effect that arises from selectively varying a mass while linearly oscillating it. So the mass is higher in value on the upstroke and lower in value on the downstroke.From the infos I have available (book, papers, etc.) that's not quite accurate. Wikipedia page definition seems consistent with what I found in the other sources:QuoteThe hypothesis states that transient mass fluctuations arise in any object that absorbs internal energy while undergoing a proper acceleration.So technically one can have a Woodward/Mach effect without any generation of thrust. Simply accelerating an object while changing its internal energy produces a transient fluctuation, but if you don't push and pull at the right moment there's no "momentum flux" and the center of mass stays put. That's the reason why Woodward uses two frequencies for driving the device, one for generating the mass fluctuation by accelerating and changing the internal energy at the same time and the other, double of the first one, for pushing and pulling.QuoteOkay, fair enough - so perhaps a conventional chemical reaction isn't the best candidate - but has anyone comparatively looked at all the possible candidates for physical changes that correspond to change in internal energy? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the first candidate was the electricity flow in and out of a capacitor, and then later it was purely about mechanical oscillation through piezos.In Woodward's book it is said that at first the importance of the requirement of "bulk acceleration" was not understood, so initially part of trials consisted in simply charging and discharging a capacitor while pushing and pulling it, or using schemes such as the MLT (Mach-Lorentz thruster). These test often resulted in dubious or inconclusive results.When this requirement was acknowledged it was determined that the best design between those tried before was the piezoelectric disk type.These disks provide the acceleration and, when stacked, they also behave like capacitors, so that their internal energy can be changed. So in a way it was never about "pure" mechanical oscillation.Tajmar paper, posted some pages ago, claims that the "internal energy" that appears in Woodward's equation is actually only the internal mechanical energy of the excited pzt stacks. In this way the predicted thrust seems to fit the data point obtained much better than the previous models.I'm only aware of one other test using a device with a different concept. It was suggested by Buldrini in 2011, and it consisted of a ferromagnetic mass that was accelerated through a magnetic field, kinda like in a coilgun, while its internal energy was changing due to the induced magnetostrictive stresses. Any mass fluctuation would have resulted in a difference between the predicted and measured final displacement or velocity.I'm not completely sure this test was actually performed. If so, the results seems to have never been published anywhere.Here's the paper detailing the proposal.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187538921100575X QuoteAre we sure that mechanical oscillation is the best way to achieve internal energy fluctuation (aka. mass fluctuation) for Mach Effect purposes?See above, in the context of this effect fluctuating the internal energy alone (like charging and discharging a capacitor) doesn't cause the sought transient mass fluctuation. Beside this, the problem is really what this "internal energy" means here. If only the internal mechanical energy (causally linked with the force responsible for the acceleration) is the "right" internal energy then a lot of alternatives won't work.QuoteDo you see what I'm saying?Maybe, but I'm not sure why you think that "cross-section contamination" is a problem here. If you are still referring to mass fluctuation as the effect that comes out of m=E/c^2 then there is no way to use this in a isolated system for propulsion.
As I understand it, Woodward/Mach effect is the alleged propulsive effect that arises from selectively varying a mass while linearly oscillating it. So the mass is higher in value on the upstroke and lower in value on the downstroke.
The hypothesis states that transient mass fluctuations arise in any object that absorbs internal energy while undergoing a proper acceleration.
Okay, fair enough - so perhaps a conventional chemical reaction isn't the best candidate - but has anyone comparatively looked at all the possible candidates for physical changes that correspond to change in internal energy? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the first candidate was the electricity flow in and out of a capacitor, and then later it was purely about mechanical oscillation through piezos.
Are we sure that mechanical oscillation is the best way to achieve internal energy fluctuation (aka. mass fluctuation) for Mach Effect purposes?
Do you see what I'm saying?
How to push on the Vacuum, or create friction with the Vacuum using Radiation Reaction.I think the Woodward effect can be modeled this way, but please note that this is a work in progress. Not a paper for review. I'm hoping to give us something to discuss and make the conversation a little more productive.
Merry Christmas!
Quote from: WarpTech on 12/25/2017 03:26 amMerry Christmas!Merry Christmas to you also!I'm not sure what you are saying here. The accelerated objects in Woodward's formula are bulk objects and have no net charge.
Quote from: Bob012345 on 12/25/2017 04:29 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 12/25/2017 03:26 amMerry Christmas!Merry Christmas to you also!I'm not sure what you are saying here. The accelerated objects in Woodward's formula are bulk objects and have no net charge.Since the charge is squared, I am assuming Free charge, not NET charge. If I assume 1 free electron per atom, the result is at the same order of magnitude, to what is measured by Fearn & Woodward. Classically, radiation reaction is modelled as the charged particle interfering with itself. We assume it is interfering with the fields of everything else in the universe.
Quote from: WarpTech on 12/25/2017 06:28 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 12/25/2017 04:29 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 12/25/2017 03:26 amMerry Christmas!Merry Christmas to you also!I'm not sure what you are saying here. The accelerated objects in Woodward's formula are bulk objects and have no net charge.Since the charge is squared, I am assuming Free charge, not NET charge. If I assume 1 free electron per atom, the result is at the same order of magnitude, to what is measured by Fearn & Woodward. Classically, radiation reaction is modelled as the charged particle interfering with itself. We assume it is interfering with the fields of everything else in the universe.Thanks. But aren't you essentially saying that in your model the Mach effect is a missing part of EM theory (or a bridge between EM and Gravity)? If that were true then a clever redesign of some electrical machines would greatly enhance our current technology. Or is that going a bit too far?
Quote from: Bob012345 on 12/26/2017 05:02 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 12/25/2017 06:28 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 12/25/2017 04:29 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 12/25/2017 03:26 amMerry Christmas!Merry Christmas to you also!I'm not sure what you are saying here. The accelerated objects in Woodward's formula are bulk objects and have no net charge.Since the charge is squared, I am assuming Free charge, not NET charge. If I assume 1 free electron per atom, the result is at the same order of magnitude, to what is measured by Fearn & Woodward. Classically, radiation reaction is modelled as the charged particle interfering with itself. We assume it is interfering with the fields of everything else in the universe.Thanks. But aren't you essentially saying that in your model the Mach effect is a missing part of EM theory (or a bridge between EM and Gravity)? If that were true then a clever redesign of some electrical machines would greatly enhance our current technology. Or is that going a bit too far?Not missing. Misinterpreted or misunderstood would be a better description. Hard to tell yet if there is a significant advantage or not. These equations imply the resulting force is no better than a photon rocket. It's simply a matter of numbers, that if all atoms take part in the process, such as; stimulated emission due to vibration, then it's still just a photon rocket. This is an electromagnetic process, not a gravitaitonal one. I'm still trying to comprehend the gravitational effect and determine if it is stronger or weaker than the EM effect described above.
Quote from: WarpTech on 12/26/2017 05:46 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 12/26/2017 05:02 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 12/25/2017 06:28 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 12/25/2017 04:29 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 12/25/2017 03:26 amMerry Christmas!Merry Christmas to you also!I'm not sure what you are saying here. The accelerated objects in Woodward's formula are bulk objects and have no net charge.Since the charge is squared, I am assuming Free charge, not NET charge. If I assume 1 free electron per atom, the result is at the same order of magnitude, to what is measured by Fearn & Woodward. Classically, radiation reaction is modelled as the charged particle interfering with itself. We assume it is interfering with the fields of everything else in the universe.Thanks. But aren't you essentially saying that in your model the Mach effect is a missing part of EM theory (or a bridge between EM and Gravity)? If that were true then a clever redesign of some electrical machines would greatly enhance our current technology. Or is that going a bit too far?Not missing. Misinterpreted or misunderstood would be a better description. Hard to tell yet if there is a significant advantage or not. These equations imply the resulting force is no better than a photon rocket. It's simply a matter of numbers, that if all atoms take part in the process, such as; stimulated emission due to vibration, then it's still just a photon rocket. This is an electromagnetic process, not a gravitaitonal one. I'm still trying to comprehend the gravitational effect and determine if it is stronger or weaker than the EM effect described above.???The reported thrust from the Woodward team under development is already far beyond a photon rocket and projected to be a lot larger still. If your model only gives a photon rocket why bother with the complexity when you can just use a laser?
QuoteAre we sure that mechanical oscillation is the best way to achieve internal energy fluctuation (aka. mass fluctuation) for Mach Effect purposes?See above, in the context of this effect fluctuating the internal energy alone (like charging and discharging a capacitor) doesn't cause the sought transient mass fluctuation. Beside this, the problem is really what this "internal energy" means here. If only the internal mechanical energy (causally linked with the force responsible for the acceleration) is the "right" internal energy then a lot of alternatives won't work.
What [Nembo Buldrini] pointed out was that given the way the transient terms of the Mach effect equation are written – in terms of the time-derivatives of the proper energy density – it is easy to lose sight of the requirement in the derivation that the object in which the mass fluctuations occur must be accelerating at the same time. In some of the experimental cases, no provision for such "bulk" acceleration was made.15 As an example, the capacitors affixed to the tines of the tuning fork in the Cramer and the students' experiments made no provision for such an acceleration. Had the tuning fork been separately excited and an electric field applied to the capacitor(s) been properly phased, an effect might have been seen. But to simply apply a voltage to the capacitors and then look for a response in the tuning fork should not have been expected to produce a compelling result.Other examples could be cited and discussed. Suffice it to say, though, that after Nembo focused attention in the issue of bulk accelerations in the production of Mach effects, the design and execution of experiments changed. The transition to that work, and recent results of experiments presently in progress, are addressed in the next chapter.15 By "bulk" acceleration we are referring to the fact that the conditions of the derivation include that the object be both accelerated and experience internal energy changes. The acceleration of ions in the material of a capacitor, for example, does not meet this condition. The capacitor as a whole must be accelerated in bulk while it is being polarized.
My "lab" is coming along nicely. I have 2 MEGA's. MEGA-2 has all 4 disks “electrically" in parallel, stacked in series. MEGA-1 has 2 disks electrically in series and the two pairs in parallel. MEGA-1: + - + - - + - +MEGA-2: + - - + + - - +I just got the dual 400W amplifier that operates on 12VDC, but I have not finished hooking it up yet. So far, what I've done is learn how to use my O'scope as a cheap VNA. The plots are from 0 to 700kHz, 50kHz/Div.
On MEGA-2, I zoomed in and determined the 1st strong resonance is at 44kHz, and it has an impedance of 100 Ohms at this frequency. I also noticed that the PZT stack behaves like a capacitor, not an RLC circuit. Once charged, it doesn't ring and discharges very slowly. The impedance of a 1M-Ohm O'scope probe is enough to cause it to discharge, but without the probe attached, it stays charged for a relatively long time.
Ok, Warp Tech. I'm trying to wrap my mind around this:QuoteOn MEGA-2, I zoomed in and determined the 1st strong resonance is at 44kHz, and it has an impedance of 100 Ohms at this frequency. I also noticed that the PZT stack behaves like a capacitor, not an RLC circuit. Once charged, it doesn't ring and discharges very slowly. The impedance of a 1M-Ohm O'scope probe is enough to cause it to discharge, but without the probe attached, it stays charged for a relatively long time. Are you saying that this device is like a 'turbo-charged' photon rocket because it's also a capacitor?
If so, wouldn't the 'extra thrust' gained during the discharge effect be lost while the device was charging?
And...heading out on a limb here...way back in the first few EM Drive threads, repeated mention was made by electrical engineers that the EM Drive device was 'capacitor-like.' Possibly your explanation applies to the EM Drive as well? Or is the degree of thrust between this and the EM Drive too far apart?
Quote from: ThinkerX on 01/04/2018 01:24 amAre you saying that this device is like a 'turbo-charged' photon rocket because it's also a capacitor? It is like a "turbo-charged photon rocket", but not because it's a capacitor.
Are you saying that this device is like a 'turbo-charged' photon rocket because it's also a capacitor?
I have completely rebuilt my MEGA based on the mathematical model. I am still using the same SM-111 material, with the 50mm x 2.1mm disks. The diagram below shows the complete assembly. I have two stacks of 4 disks, that allow me to either combine them together into an 8 disk stack or keep them separated and apply 2 frequencies, as shown. The last 2 disks are used to measure the displacement, it provides an output signal so I can quantitatively measure what is going on. Dr Woodward refers to this as an accelerometer, but it can only measure displacement.The plots below have a center frequency at 45kHz, 5kHz/div, from 20kHz to 70kHz. Compare images TOP3 to BOT3. The Bottom stack being the one resting on the copper reaction mass. The Top stack is the 4 disks in the middle, and the output in purple is measured at the output of the displacement sensor.1. You can see how very different each of the 4 disk stacks behaves. I don't know why but this will need more investigation. Perhaps I need to buy a lot of disks and compare stacks and find two that are well matched.2. From these two, I want to select the frequency to drive each stack, such that the two frequencies are the 1st and 2nd harmonics. I found several pairs of frequencies that work. 21.5/43kHz, 45/90kHz, 63/126kHz. Of the 3 pairs, the lowest frequency has the highest amplitude by a wide margin. The response is not there at high frequency, it will require much larger electric fields to drive the stacks at higher frequencies.3. In the image BOTH3, both were combined into an 8 disk stack, driven by 1 source. Notice that around 21kHz, the purple trace is asymmetrical. This is how we can spot where the Electrostriction is occurring. Without applying the 2nd harmonic, at around 21.5kHz the stack will provide its own 2nd harmonic from the electrostriction effect of the stack. The problem is, the stack heats up rather quickly and as it does, the electrostriction goes away, or is no longer at the right phase relationship relative to the 1st harmonic. 4. When I apply 2 sources as shown in the diagram, heat doesn't cause it to drift as long as the driving frequency is in the bandwidth where the amplitude of the displacement sensor is large. I still haven't started working on a driving circuit because first I need to quantify what is needed to drive it properly.
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.
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.