-
#1000 by birchoff on 27 Sep, 2014 04:57
-
GiThruster wrote <<I was actually the first to argue that as far as I understood the theory, not just the mobile ion needed to be accelerated, but the entire lattice. Nembo Buldrini then showed this is true from the math and all of the M-E work immediately changed. I was the first to abandon the Mach Lorentz Thruster (the design Brito used) and focus on the previous design, what is now known as the Mach Effect Thruster or MET.>>
If my understanding is correct, GiThruster is referring to the experiments performed by Paul March, reported in this paper: Paul March and Andrew Palfreyman. "The Woodward Effect: Math Modeling and Continued Experimental Verifications at 2 to 4 MHz" http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31119.0;attach=496011, since Paul March refers to his experiments as Mach Lorentz Thruster:
<<This type of electromagnetic field thruster, or Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT), purports to create a transient mass differential that is expressed in a working medium to produce a net thrust in the dielectric material contained in several capacitors.>>
So, if I understand GiThruster correctly, the experiments by Paul March quoted by Dr. White in his slide 40 (in August 2013) of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf :
______________________________
Paul March Woodward-Effect device tested with a load-cell-in-vertical-motion in 2004:
SPECIFIC FORCE= 0.4 N/kW (up to 90 000 times larger than the photon rocket)
______________________________
Paul March Woodward-Effect device tested with a load-cell-in-vertical-motion in 2005:
SPECIFIC FORCE= 0.3 N/kW (up to 67 000 times larger than the photon rocket) [/color]
______________________________
have been deemed to be an experimental artifact? as GiThruster states that "they" [meaning Woodward ?] have abandoned this kind of thruster as not being able to produce thrust because the "bulk" is not accelerated?
because <<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations.>>
My interpretation of all this is that GiThruster and Woodward think that the kind of MLT drive that Paul March tested in 2004/5 cannot generate sizeable thrust according to the latest interpretation (post 2008? and certainly post-Brito-2009-null experiment) of Woodward. But since Dr. White presented these results of Paul March in his slide 40 (in August 2013) as a Q-thruster, Dr. White thinks that Paul March's MLT thruster can theoretically deliver thrust according to White's Quantum Vacuum theory.
As someone who has read Jim's book. I would consider your analysis quoted above to be valid.
Part of the reason I believe GiThruster and others keep pushing you to read Jim's book is because without it you have zero context. Yes you can attempt to reconstruct that context by simply searching for all the papers including those referenced. But I would argue that you would be missing some detail. For example in the book you learn that Woodward started his experiments with what he calls a Mach Effect Thruster and eventually stopped that line of investigation after learning about Brito's initial work on advanced propulsion schemes, using a simple electrical circuit to generate thrust. Woodward refers to this as a Slepian circuit in the book (because according to Woodward in the book the idea originated in an article published by Joseph Slepian in 1940; this link, http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/slepian.pdf, should lend some credibility to the claim).It is this Slepian circuit that was renamed to Mach Lorrentz Thruster. It would not be possible to know that from only looking at the papers because according to the book it doesn't look like his early lab work was actually published, though there are repeated references to a series of tests being recounted in "The Technical End of Mach's Principle"(cannot seem to quickly find a link to this material via google). Woodwards justification for this lack of publishing results from his earlier experiments come down to his in ability to get consistent results, so like a good experimentalist he didn't trust the results and moved on to working with the Mach Lorrentz Thursters.
After the variable results of attempts to generate thrust using the MLT's it looks like that line of investigation was dropped and Jim returned to the MET's he had originally abandoned to see if he could pin point the cause of the variability in his early experiments. as you can see from the following comment from the last few paragraphs of chapter 4 reproduced below.
QuoteSooner or later we have to deal with the fact that the results of the various experimental efforts over the years were, to put it circumspectly, variable at best. In part, this can be attributed to things like variation in construction details, the quality of components, and the aging of materials operated toward their electrical and mechanical limits. But something more fundamental seems to have been going on.
The person who put his finger on that more fundamental issue was Nembo Buldrini. What he 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 a "bulk" acceleration was made. As an example, the capacitors affixed to the tines of the tuning fork in the Cramer and students' experiment made no provision for such an acceleration. Had the tuning fork been separately excited and the 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 on 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.
The emphasis above is strictly my own. The definition of bulk acceleration was also defined at the end of chapter 4 as a foot note. I have reproduced it below, again emphasis is entirely mineQuoteBy "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.
Now while I can understand your reluctance to read Dr. Woodwards book. I think this is one particular instance that you should make an exception. The book is basically a summary of all of Dr. Woodwards work up to 2011-2012, which was written for easy digestion by an engineer. That said he also included references to all the published materials he references in his discussion of any theory and published experimental results. -
#1001 by CW on 27 Sep, 2014 06:33
-
About electrolytic capacitors not rated for vacuum conditions.. I think that's a silly excuse to avoid testing in vacuum. There is a number of ways to encapsulate electronic parts, e.g. using simple hot glue or other substances that can encapsulate for a long enough time during the experiments. I just can't believe this. Maybe hot glue was not fancy or Star Trek enough. It has to be special hardware
.
-
#1002 by Cinder on 27 Sep, 2014 12:16
-
Why not simply join the mailing list? I see no benefit from these intermediates.
-
#1003 by JohnFornaro on 27 Sep, 2014 13:48
-
Why not simply join the mailing list? I see no benefit from these intermediates.
I found the mailing list to be a "reply all" fanclub only, and not worth the effort. -
#1004 by JohnFornaro on 27 Sep, 2014 13:49
-
Ok, John you've made way too many comments on the related threads here not to have at least followed the claimed story unless it's deliberate. The story is that the 'bulk acceleration' conjecture doesn't impact Woodward's 'source of inertia' theories at all because it's a question of correct method for engineering a 'unidirectional force generator' from the theory, not demonstrating a yeah/nay experiment that 'suggests itself' directly from the maths. ...
Not saying any of that makes this smell legit. But that's the story as I understand it.
Cuddihy: I appreciate your efforts here and there to explain some of these matters to me. I do "follow" the argument, within my math and physics limits.
Please define the terms "bulk" and "non-bulk". With numbers. -
#1005 by JohnFornaro on 27 Sep, 2014 13:53
-
Please define the terms "bulk" and "non-bulk". With numbers.
As someone who has read Jim's book. I would consider your analysis quoted above to be valid. ...
Quote from: Woodward, the Stargate bookBy "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.
This is not sufficient.
The experimental object is not accelerating and the internal energy changes are not measurably affecting the object's rest mass.Quote from: BirchoffNow while I can understand [Rodal's] reluctance to read Dr. Woodwards book. I think this is one particular instance that you should make an exception.
I agree. -
#1006 by Rodal on 27 Sep, 2014 14:03
-
My interest has been, and remains, in what is responsible for the EM drive measurements performed and reported by Dr. White at NASA Eagleworks.
I discussed Woodward's explanations because of the experiments by Paul March quoted by Dr. White in his slide 40 (in August 2013) of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf :
______________________________
Paul March Woodward-Effect device tested with a load-cell-in-vertical-motion in 2004:
SPECIFIC FORCE= 0.4 N/kW (up to 90 000 times larger than the photon rocket)
______________________________
Paul March Woodward-Effect device tested with a load-cell-in-vertical-motion in 2005:
SPECIFIC FORCE= 0.3 N/kW (up to 67 000 times larger than the photon rocket)
______________________________
It has now become apparent that:
1) These experiments were not performed at NASA Eagleworks
2) Woodward's explanation for this kind of EM Drive (sometimes called MLT thruster) has been nullified by the experiments conducted by Brito, Marini and Galian, which, among other things, show the importance of the testing device: the superiority of the classical oil-damped Cavendish hanging-pendulum (previously used to verify the inverse-square law of Gravitation and Casimir force) for measuring very small forces.
3) As stated by GiThruster and others, Woodward and his colleagues have abandoned this kind of (MLT) thruster as not being able to produce thrust because <<the "bulk" is not accelerated>>, and Woodward now states that <<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations.>>
4) No Woodward MET thruster measurement has been reported to have ever been performed at NASA Eagleworks.
5) Although I have never seen an actual numerical value threshold given for what Woodward and his colleagues consider to be a high enough acceleration for in their own words <<the "bulk" to be accelerated>>, it appears from the context of publications that the drives (SFE Boeing/DARPA, Cannae and Frustum) tested by Dr. White at NASA Eagleworks, did not meet the <<"bulk" accelerated>> requirement by Woodward and therefore cannot be explained by Woodward's theory as presently stated. -
#1007 by JohnFornaro on 27 Sep, 2014 14:10
-
It may be that there is other info in the book that would buttress the faulty theory to date.
-
#1008 by Rodal on 27 Sep, 2014 14:51
-
So, these are the only EM drives that have been reported as having been tested at NASA Eagleworks by Dr. White:
Experimental data obtained using Dr. White's NASA inverted torsion pendulum
______________________________
"Serrano Field Effect" Boeing/DARPA device:
(@aceshigh quotes P. March (in another forum) as stating that this SFE device was tested in a vacuum by NASA)
THRUST = 20 to 110 uN impulse response (not a rectangular pulse)
SPECIFIC FORCE = 1 to 20 N/kW (225 000 to 4.5 million times larger than a photon rocket)
______________________________
Cannae Testing:
(not tested in a vacuum by NASA)
THRUST = 40 uN ~rectangular pulse (duration 30s to 40s)
SPECIFIC FORCE: 0.0014 N/kW (up to 300 times larger than a photon rocket)
______________________________
Tapered (Frustum) Cavity Testing:
(not tested in a vacuum by NASA)
THRUST = 50 to 90 uN ~rectangular pulse (duration 30s to 40s)
SPECIFIC FORCE= 0.003 N/kW to 0.0054 N/kW (700 to 1200 times larger than a photon rocket)
______________________________
None of these appear to meet the <<"bulk" accelerated>> threshold requirement by Woodward and therefore cannot be explained by Woodward's theory as presently stated.
Observe that NASA Eagleworks reports very small measured thrust forces (average lower than 100 microNewtons) for all these tested devices in Eagleworks inverted pendulum.
EDIT: It is also important to realize that Eagleworks noted in their report that
<<p. 14 The net force is calculated by accounting for the null force present in the system. Null testing is performed by attaching the RF drive system to a 50 ohm load and running the system at full power. The null force testing indicated that there was an average null force of 9.6 micronewtons present in the as tested configuration. The presence of this null force was a result of the DC power current of 5.6 amps running in the power cable to the RF amplifier from the liquid metal contacts. This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system. The null test data is also shown in Fig. 20.>>
So, the average null force is admitted to be 25% of the thrust force reported for the Cannae device. Eagleworks attempts to account for this null force (current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the pendulum magnetic damper system) linearly as if they could just subtract this interaction: Eagleworks does not account for nonlinear coupling that is known to be present in the system (I will show this in more detail in the future).
Maximum duration of measured thrust pulse (for Cannae and Frustum) is less than 40 seconds. -
#1009 by Ron Stahl on 27 Sep, 2014 15:20
-
Quote
It has now become apparent that:
1) These experiments were not performed at NASA Eagleworks
2) Woodward's explanation for this kind of EM Drive (sometimes called MLT thruster ) has been nullified by the experiments conducted by Brito, Marini and Galian
3) As stated by GiThruster and others, Woodward and his colleagues have abandoned this kind of (MLT) thruster as not being able to produce thrust because <<the "bulk" is not accelerated>>, and Woodward now states that <<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations.>>
4) No Woodward MET thruster measurement has been reported to have been ever performed at NASA Eagleworks
5) Although I have never seen an actual numerical value given for what Woodward and his colleagues consider to be a high enough acceleration for in their own words <<the "bulk" to be accelerated>>, it appears from the context of publications that the drives (SFE Boeing/DARPA, Cannae and Frustum) tested by Dr. White at NASA Eagleworks, did not meet the <<"bulk" accelerated>> requirement by Woodward and therefore cannot be explained by Woodward's theory as presently stated.
1) No, the MLT experiments cited by Dr. White were performed years before there was an Eagleworks and before Dr. White had even formed his QVF conjecture. The experiments were with AC, and at the time it was thought the design would generate thrust according to M-E theory.
2) Explanations are never nullified. They can be falsified but that is something different than what you're suggesting here. However the fact is, the test results at Fullerton with the MLT did show some thrust. They showed very poor thrust for several reasons, the simplest of which is explained by the bulk acceleration conjecture, that according to the proper understanding of theory, the entire dielectric lattice needs to be accelerated both to generate M-E and to rectify it into thrust. Try to understand at least a little of how these devices are proposed to work if you want to critique that work.
In the MLT thruster attempts, the intention was to avoid the acoustic troubles of the previous (and again current) MET design by accelerating only the mobile Ti ion inside the BaTiO3 lattice. The rest of the lattice was not accelerated save by the smallish remaining piezoelectric and electrostrictive effects that were not being damped out by the agent sintered into that material specifically to remove those effects. Nembo's "Bulk Acceleration Conjecture" (BAC) was that the entire lattice needs to be accelerated and this explained why the MLT (later renamed QVF Thruster by Sonny) had disappointing results.
3) It is completely incorrect to infer that Woodward only after the BAC, began to state "simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations." Woodward has made this plain from the earliest work. Acceleration has always been understood as one of the two criteria necessary to generate Mach Effects and this is in papers dating back to the 90's. The difference between before BAC and after BAC is that for a short time, it was believed that accelerating only the mobile ion inside the dielectric lattice would be sufficient. So Woodward has not moved the goal posts. He has simply agreed the MLT design is not the best design according to the best reading of his theory.
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.
5) As I have already explained, "bulk" acceleration is not a reference to a magnitude of acceleration in the ceramic. It is a reference to the entire lattice needing to accelerate rather than just the mobile ion. Here is an image of a typical perovskite structure:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Perovskite.svg
Note the black center ion. In the BaTiO3 caps used by March, Brito and Woodward, this was also a Ti ion. The MLT only deliberately accelerated this ion. However, the lattice or cage itself, also experiences charge carrier displacements that stretch and squish the cage according to the piezo and electrostrictive constants, regardless of crystal phase. (BaTiO3 is not cubic at room temperature as is suggested by this figure.) This stretching and squishing is repressed in most modern capacitors using BaTiO3, PZT, and other perovskites by adding a sintering agent that attenuates these accelerations--stops your modern electronics from shaking apart.
In order to accelerate the entire lattice in one direction to generate M-E and thrust, you need to use a dielectric that does not include a mechanical attenuator. You also need a reaction mass for the lattice to press against or an acoustic reflector of some sort. These were not included in the MLT design because accelerating only the mobile ion does not require this. So although the MLT could work by happenstance, given the caps were somewhat rigidly locked in place and accelerated in only one direction like a 1/4 resonator rather than 2 directions like a 1/2 wave resonator, given these happenstance occurrences, the MLT could and did produce modest thrust. However, it is much better to use the electromechanical linking of these materials and design to deliberately force them to accelerate the way we'd like. This is the challenge of the current design and the challenge is serious enough that the MLT was originally conceived as a "silver bullet" to sidestep this challenge. As it turns out, one can't sidestep the need for bulk acceleration.
Hope that helps. And yeah, you should read the book. There is so much important stuff in that book that even the asides make the book worthwhile. Woodward's proposed model of the electron is going to win him a Nobel Prize if it turns out to be correct, and making these thrusters work provides significant evidence to that end. -
#1010 by Rodal on 27 Sep, 2014 15:29
-
...Woodward's proposed model of the electron is going to win him a Nobel Prize if it turns out to be correct, and making these thrusters work provides significant evidence to that end.
Please let us know whether the following devices tested at NASA Eagleworks: 1) Cannae Testing and 2) Tapered (Frustum) Cavity Testing have met the requirement of <<bulk acceleration>> as tested at NASA Eagleworks and as reported in the paper "Anomalous Thrust..." and all other requirements necessary for the thrust of a propellant-less drive to be justified as a Woodward effect. -
#1011 by Ron Stahl on 27 Sep, 2014 15:41
-
You're asking the wrong guy. You want to ask Paul. But yes. Sonny and Paul have had a dog in this hunt since way back before there was an Eagleworks. They built a Shawyer resonator years before--which is what the tapered cavity resonator is. They did this because like with the MLT, Sonny claims his QVF conjecture explains thrust from the tapered cavity resonator. I'm sure he says the same about the Cannae device. The paper you're referencing is a record of these explorations at JSC. I don't recall there being any reference to the MLT work Sonny renamed in order to get funding for Eagle. Obviously there would be no point publishing about old work that he knows did not provide the proper scientific controls to be taken seriously.
-
#1012 by Rodal on 27 Sep, 2014 15:51
-
You're asking the wrong guy. You want to ask Paul. But yes. Sonny and Paul have had a dog in this hunt since way back before there was an Eagleworks. They built a Shawyer resonator years before--which is what the tapered cavity resonator is. They did this because like with the MLT, Sonny claims his QVF conjecture explains thrust from the tapered cavity resonator. I'm sure he says the same about the Cannae device.
Sorry, but I don't understand your answer. These are microwave cavities, with a PTFE ("Teflon") dielectric resonator. Eagleworks reports measuring no thrust with the PTFE dielectric resonator removed. The devices are tested in an inverted torsional pendulum, with initial zero velocity and initial zero acceleration, according to the report. Now, according to your understanding of the requirement of <<bulk acceleration>>, do these tests qualify as having imparted a <<bulk acceleration>> as per Woodward's theory, yes or not?
If "yes" how is the <<bulk acceleration>> imparted to these microwave cavities ? -
#1013 by Ron Stahl on 27 Sep, 2014 16:00
-
Quote
Now, according to your understanding of the requirement of <<bulk acceleration>>, do these tests qualify as having imparted a <<bulk acceleration>> as per Woodward's theory, yes or not?
I can't answer this because I'm not familiar enough with the experiment. Certainly it is possible that this is a sloppily designed MET, meaning M-E theory would explain thrust from such a thing, but I don't know because for instance, I don't know in what manner that dielectric would accelerate.
If the dielectric is confined in such a way, that it accelerates almost equal and opposite directions as in a 1/2 wave resonator, then no, the device should not produce thrust according to M-E theory. If instead the piezo and electrostrictive responses are confined to generate an unbalanced acceleration more to the left than to the right, resembling a 1/4 wave resonator; then yes, any thrust here can be explained by M-E theory.
I'm just not familiar enough with the experimental setup to say. -
#1014 by Notsosureofit on 27 Sep, 2014 17:33
-
If the dielectric is there to increase the reflectivity, then it's a 1/4 wave.
Thanks for the Slepian. When my poor old brain integrates around an entire system I get zero.
The next term would be the interatomic nuclear force ? (cold fusion anyone ?)
Almost forgot, the 1 wavelength "coffee can resonator" at the earths surface has an interaction wavelength of 10^10 meters.
-
#1015 by JohnFornaro on 27 Sep, 2014 18:02
-
No, the MLT experiments cited by Dr. White were performed years before there was an Eagleworks and before Dr. White had even formed his QVF conjecture. The experiments were with AC, and at the time it was thought the design would generate thrust according to M-E theory.
Thanks for the history lesson. It is immaterial, since it appears that a correct re-telling of the story line is more important than the correctness of the theory or of the applicability of the experimental apparatus.Quote from: RonExplanations are never nullified. They can be falsified.
This is semantic gobbledeegook. The explanation you have offered contains no math.Quote from: RonTry to understand at least a little of how these devices are proposed to work if you want to critique that work.
It would be most helpful if there were math associated with the proposal of how the device works, specifically a mathematical and physical definition of "bulk acceleration".Quote from: RonAs I have already explained, "bulk" acceleration is not a reference to a magnitude of acceleration in the ceramic. It is a reference to the entire lattice needing to accelerate rather than just the mobile ion. Here is an image of a typical perovskite structure:
What is the mass of the illustrated PZT structure on the wiki page? Is it the same as the proposed lattice structure? The Wiki page shows one molecule. What is the mass requirted? What is the expected rate of acceleration? What is the measured acceleration? How much electrical power goes into the lattice? How much acceleration is expected? If the virtually massless lattice accelerates, what is the acceleration effect on the mass of the nuclei of the molecule?Quote from: RonIn order to accelerate the entire lattice in one direction to generate M-E and thrust, you need to use a dielectric that does not include a mechanical attenuator.
What? the lattice is between atoms. There is no mechanical attenuator at this scale.Quote from: RonYou also need a reaction mass for the lattice to press against...
The rest of the universe has been suggested, but this is not backed by any theory, and not included in your explanation.Obviously there would be no point publishing about old work that he knows did not provide the proper scientific controls to be taken seriously.
Rodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing stray forces, but he has received no acknowledgement that this is the case. Instead, people are arguing historical narratives, and offering wordy explanations of arbitrary terms.I'm just not familiar enough with the experimental setup to say.
Which is fine. Nobody is, and the experimentors aren't sharing. The discussion about lattices and attenuators is only an exercise in liguistic meaning.
Why are you arguing so strenuously on a topic that you are not "familiar enough" with? -
#1016 by JohnFornaro on 27 Sep, 2014 18:04
-
If the dielectric is there to increase the reflectivity, then it's a 1/4 wave.
Thanks for the Slepian. When my poor old brain integrates around an entire system I get zero.
The next term would be the interatomic nuclear force ? (cold fusion anyone ?)
Almost forgot, the 1 wavelength "coffee can resonator" at the earths surface has an interaction wavelength of 10^10 meters.
Whaaaaa? I can only give you the DBUG salute on that one.
http://world.std.com/~eshu/dbug/apr04.pdf -
#1017 by Rodal on 27 Sep, 2014 19:15
-
It is also important to realize that Eagleworks noted in their report that
<<p. 14 The net force is calculated by accounting for the null force present in the system. Null testing is performed by attaching the RF drive system to a 50 ohm load and running the system at full power. The null force testing indicated that there was an average null force of 9.6 micronewtons present in the as tested configuration. The presence of this null force was a result of the DC power current of 5.6 amps running in the power cable to the RF amplifier from the liquid metal contacts. This current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the torsion pendulum magnetic damper system. The null test data is also shown in Fig. 20.>>
So, the average null force is admitted to be 25% of the thrust force reported for the Cannae device. Eagleworks attempts to account for this null force (current causes the power cable to generate a magnetic field that interacts with the pendulum magnetic damper system) linearly as if they could just subtract this interaction: Eagleworks does not account for nonlinear coupling that is known to be present in the system (I will show this in more detail in the future). -
#1018 by Ron Stahl on 27 Sep, 2014 19:52
-
Quote
If the dielectric is there to increase the reflectivity, then it's a 1/4 wave.
That's not why the dielectric is in there. All of the cavity resonators are 1/2 wave EM resonators. You're confusing EM resonance and acoustic resonance. For an M-E device to operate, there needs to be a 1/4 wave acoustic resonance; meaning the ceramic is displacing in one direction only, not in two opposite directions, or at the very least the displacement cannot be equal and opposite as this would generate zero thrust.QuoteThis is semantic gobbledeegook. The explanation you have offered contains no math.
No. This is the kind of precision with which real scientists ought to communicate. If you want the math John, go read the papers. Didn't we go thorough all this 5 years ago? Have you still not read the papers? It is not my place to educate you. If you don't understand how these devices are supposed to work, you can read up on them. Surely, criticizing work you don't understand is a fool's errand.QuoteIt would be most helpful if there were math associated with the proposal of how the device works, specifically a mathematical and physical definition of "bulk acceleration".
The math is in the book, and in the papers that have been published on this subject every year for about 2 decades now. You can read them at your leisure. Let us however not pretend you would understand the math as you have no training in GR. Unless things have changed these last few years John? Did you go back to school?QuoteWhat is the mass of the illustrated PZT structure on the wiki page? Is it the same as the proposed lattice structure?
Yes. When people speak of the "lattice" they are speaking of the entire crystal in contrast to the mobile ion. So for example, if you are talking about a single crystal form, the mass of the dielectric is the mass of the lattice. If however you are speaking of a sintered form, the mass of the lattice could be appreciably less given any sintering agent is introduced, such as what is commonly included to attenuate electromechanical responses. Not all sintered ceramics require a sintering agent, however. Ceramics sintered with Spark Plasma sintering or FAST system, do not require binders, etc, and so the "lattice" mass would be the same as the ceramic mass. In this instance however, things like PZT that are tape cast, or other forms of PZT like what Woodward was most recently using, include binders the percentage of which are not specified by the manufacturer.QuoteWhat is the expected rate of acceleration? What is the measured acceleration?
This is different with every experiment. IMHO, the proper way to know the answer to this, and it is a good question; is to use a high speed laser doppler vibrometer. Other methods are far less precise. Future experiments will use this method if I have anything to say about it. It is fair to say however, that in general the accelerations generated in perovskites operating in the ultrasonic region, where the design provides a typical mechanical Q of about 700, are in the millions of gees. The trouble is that the device also needs to oscillate at a second frequency which is not on the natural resonace of the device, and that oscillation will be tiny if not managed extremely well. In order to know if it has been managed well, one needs a vibrometer. Woodward tracks his accelerations with accelerometers but he cannot assign raw magnitudes to them in this way.QuoteHow much electrical power goes into the lattice?
In the case of Woodward's current thruster experiments, about 100 watts, and less than one watt is dissipated. But you cannot infer what you suppose from this answer as there are a handful of complex qualifications I would offer were we having a technical discussion of something you understood sufficiently. Fact is you have not asked the right question and you cannot understand the right answer either.QuoteThe rest of the universe has been suggested, but this is not backed by any theory, and not included in your explanation.
You're mixing up two different issues. While it is true that the gravinertial flux in and out of the thruster is exchanged with the rest of the universe (and this has always been M-E theory--read the book or any of the papers published the last 20 years), in order for any 1/4 wave resonator or oscillator to function, it needs to push off a reaction mass or acoustic mirror. Whether one creates conditions for a Mach Effect event or not, any 1/4 wave acoustic resonator requires this. Now if one has such a resonator and then wants to generate M-E, one gets the changing mass from gravinertial flux exchange with the rest of the universe. Different issue. Again, you are mixing these issues because you're trying to analyze the operation of a device which you do not understand. Read the book.QuoteRodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing stray forces, but he has received no acknowledgement that this is the case. Instead, people are arguing historical narratives, and offering wordy explanations of arbitrary terms.
Paul addressed Dr. Rodal's concerns quite well. They're answered. Dr. Woodward routinely addresses concerns like these in all his work, which is one reason he has more than 100 scientists and engineers on his weekly mailing list. I doubt whether anyone is going to find fault with either Eagle's work or Woodward's in this regard, as they both constantly subject themselves to careful input on their experimental setups on a regular basis.QuoteThe discussion about lattices and attenuators is only an exercise in liguistic meaning.
Don't make the mistake thinking that just because you don't understand what I said, that Dr. Rodal does not either. I explained in great detail for real reasons and none of that explanation was mere exercise. You simply don't understand it, which is fine. Read the book.QuoteWhy are you arguing so strenuously on a topic that you are not "familiar enough" with?
I'm not arguing. I'm explaining. You're arguing. Eagle has been as transparent as is normally the case when offering a conference paper. I'm just answering Dr. Rodal that I cannot tell whether the dielectric is moving in 1/4 wave acoustic fashion from the paper. It is quite possible. Since both the resonator geometries are asymmetric, 1/4 wave motion of whatever is in there is quite plausible. -
#1019 by Rodal on 27 Sep, 2014 20:16
-
You are mistaken and/or confused with something else. Nobody has addressed the issues I have raised concerning parasitic self-excitation of the inverted pendulum due to coupling of swinging with the torsional mode, and the nonlinear nature of the magnetic damping term in the equations of motion. Furthermore concerning your opinion that "doubt whether anyone is going to find fault " with the experimental setup, Paul March has already stated in this forum that they are trying to address the problems with the magnetic damping (already admitted in the NASA "Anomalous.." paper) with a "2nd generation" design for the magnetic damper.QuoteRodal has repeatedly asserted that the "scientific controls" of the inverted pendulum are not satisfactorily removing stray forces, but he has received no acknowledgement that this is the case. Instead, people are arguing historical narratives, and offering wordy explanations of arbitrary terms.
Paul addressed Dr. Rodal's concerns quite well. They're answered. ... I doubt whether anyone is going to find fault with either Eagle's work or Woodward's in this regard, as they both constantly subject themselves to careful input on their experimental setups on a regular basis.
On one hand you state that you are << just not familiar enough with the experimental setup>> used by Eagleworks for their "Anomalous.." paper and on the other hand you make this blanket, predictive, statement about <<doubt whether anyone is going to find fault>> with the experimental setup.
.