Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 493689 times)

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 300
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1260 on: 01/21/2018 06:00 pm »
And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.

Paul, Regarding the MLT design, what do you personally think of Buldrini's (and now Woodward's) "bulk acceleration conjecture" referenced in this earlier post?

Flux Capacitor:

IMO, the a^2 Bulk Acceleration conjecture by Nembo Buldrini in 2008 and later codified by Woodward and Fearn in 2010 and 2012, see attached papers, is the key requirement to making the Mach Effect work in these gravity/inertia (G/I) thrusters. That is because this bulk acceleration a^2 term multiplies all the other thrust generation variables in the M-E thrust equation.  No bulk acceleration of the energy storing dielectric, no mass or vacuum density fluctuations from the M-E should be observed.

As you do agree with this conjecture, even saying it is "the key requirement to making the Mach Effect work in these gravity/inertia (G/I) thrusters" then what about the bulk acceleration of the capacitor in an MLT?

It is my understanding that in a MET (MEGA drive) using vibrating PZT discs, the capacitors themselves (i.e. the whole material they are made of) undergo a proper acceleration, achieving a "bulk" acceleration.

Whereas in an MLT device (which is based on Lorentz forces acting on electric charges due to crossed E×B fields, the B-field being produced by an electromagnetic coil) capacitors remain fixed, only free electrons and some mobile ions inside the lattice are being accelerated. The main atomic structure of the capacitor does not accelerate in an MLT. For this reason, it seems to me that unlike a MET, an MLT does not meet the requirements to achieve the bulk acceleration conjecture. What do you think?
Some speculation on my part is that the mach effect does work by suggesting a change in effective mass.  The difference in effective mass would be key.  What I find interesting is that depending on the current when it encounters a change in the magnetic field or light it can be either repulsed or attracted.  This suggest a reversibility in the effective mass of the moving charges with respect to the encountered electric field.  Of course this is similar to a phased array so people are reluctant to assume any effective thrust from a phased array as all they know about are the ejected photons.

What I found however was that normally in a phased array the static electric fields often oppose the propulsive thrust effects of the "relativistic electric field/magnetic field". 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1459290#msg1459290


So in a normal phased array you have this competing effect between static electric field and magnetic fields.  I have wanted to test or I should some time try and estimate what would happen when one of these effects is eliminated, what would be the effective thrust.  There are ways of eliminating one of the opposing forces and even making them work together.  This would not be your standard phased array and I have my doubts it's been tested before. 

[see image at bottom]

If by some chance there were a greater than photon force that came from it then one would suspect something else was going on more than just ejection of photons which would require further research.  The patent below seems to have come across this idea some time ago but I am unsure it has ever been actually tested. 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.0
patent 8,459,002.pdf

A dielectric would be required to slow the effective speed of light between the arrays to decrease array spacing and I think it might be possible to introduce iron in the coil to enhance the magnetic field but this would decrease the frequency so it would be a challenge to get the balance just right.  Some heating effects may be present when using iron. 
« Last Edit: 01/21/2018 06:14 pm by dustinthewind »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 854
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 937
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1261 on: 01/21/2018 06:48 pm »
And this 1w & 2w acoustic phase control problem in the PZT stacks is why I'm concentrating on the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) design where both the electric mass fluctuation signal and force rectifying B-field signal travel at the speed of light in the MLT's dielectric in question.

Best, Paul M.

Paul, Regarding the MLT design, what do you personally think of Buldrini's (and now Woodward's) "bulk acceleration conjecture" referenced in this earlier post?

Flux Capacitor:

IMO, the a^2 Bulk Acceleration conjecture by Nembo Buldrini in 2008 and later codified by Woodward and Fearn in 2010 and 2012, see attached papers, is the key requirement to making the Mach Effect work in these gravity/inertia (G/I) thrusters. That is because this bulk acceleration a^2 term multiplies all the other thrust generation variables in the M-E thrust equation.  No bulk acceleration of the energy storing dielectric, no mass or vacuum density fluctuations from the M-E should be observed.

As you do agree with this conjecture, even saying it is "the key requirement to making the Mach Effect work in these gravity/inertia (G/I) thrusters" then what about the bulk acceleration of the capacitor in an MLT?

It is my understanding that in a MET (MEGA drive) using vibrating PZT discs, the capacitors themselves (i.e. the whole material they are made of) undergo a proper acceleration, achieving a "bulk" acceleration.

Whereas in an MLT device (which is based on Lorentz forces acting on electric charges due to crossed E×B fields, the B-field being produced by an electromagnetic coil) capacitors remain fixed, only free electrons and some mobile ions inside the lattice are being accelerated. The main atomic structure of the capacitor does not accelerate in an MLT. For this reason, it seems to me that unlike a MET, an MLT does not meet the requirements to achieve the bulk acceleration conjecture. What do you think?

Flux-Capacitor:

"The main atomic structure of the capacitor does not accelerate in an MLT. For this reason, it seems to me that unlike a MET, an MLT does not meet the requirements to achieve the bulk acceleration conjecture. What do you think?"

This is where Woodward's 2002-to-2006 MLT prototypes ran afoul of this bulk acceleration requirement before Buldrini pointed out the problem in 2008 after showing Jim that his Mach-6 test articles were not producing steady state thrust levels in a horizontal torque pendulum, because he used Y5U low acoustic generation energy storage caps in his build.  (In Jim's CSUF tests, he used a vertically mounted load-cell for his force sensor that permitted his MLT test articles to bounce up and down on the force sensor's internal spring, thus generating the bulk accelerations in his test articles that enabled the generation of the mass density fluctuations, which were in turn  force rectified by the MLT's ac B-field. 

Now in my own 2003 MLT build, I had an intuitive feeling that the energy storage capacitors had to move relative to the distant stars, AKA they had to bulk accelerate to operate as intended.  Thus I procured 100, Vishay Ceramite 1,000pF at 10 kV, Y5R high voltage ceramic capacitors, which come the closest to having pure BaTiO3 with a piezo response of ~78 pico-meter per volt (pm/V), in the hopes of finding enough energy storage capacitors with sufficient piezo response to be usable for the MLT application. 

(Capacitor manufacturers to NOT measure the piezo-response of their energy storage capacitors, since they went to some trouble in the first place to originally formulate their ceramic alloy blends with as little piezo response as possible to minimize their acoustic micro-phonics when subjected to vibrations.  A micro-phonic characteristic that their military customers and stereo amplifier equipment manufactures did not want to deal with.  Lucky for me they were only partially successful in their quest, due to the piezo response bell curve of some of their ceramic alloy products.)   

I tested each of the procured 100, Y5R capacitors with a "rap" test while monitoring their output with a scope to see which ones had the most mechanical to electrical output using a semi-consistent rapping force applied to a oak wood table in my lab that was applied at right angles to the capacitor's parallel plate electrodes.  I then chose the 8 caps with the as determined highest piezo response for my MLT-2004 test article and mounted them into a capacitor ring, per the attached slides.  I then mounted the 8-cap capacitor ring in a bedding of silicone RTV that insulated the cap's High Voltage leads, but also allowed the cap-ring's PCB to vertically vibrate ever so slightly inside the toroidal copper-wire coil at 2X the MLT drive frequency.  Lastly, I also used a vertical load cell like Woodward for my force measurement system, which also permitted maximizing the relative motion of the caps relative to the stars.  Did I plan all of this from the beginning?  Other than the original intuitive feel I had about the need for movement in the MLT cap ring, it just sort of happened this way, but I have found over the years that my internal muses are oft times right if I bother to listen to them.  Woodward just called it "Beginners Luck" when I showed him my initial MLT-2004 test results at the STAIF-2004 Conference in New Mexico.

BTW for future MLT builds we should all consider using on-purpose, high electrical and mechanical-Q piezoelectric, i.e., "hard" piezo-materials like the Steiner Martin SM118 material for the MLT's energy storage capacitors while driving them at one of the piezo-ring's higher harmonic radial resonant modes.  We also need to allow the resulting cap-ring assembly in the toroidal coil to be cyclically Z-axis accelerated by the crossed ac E-fields and B-fields relative to the the toroidal coil, and the distant stars.  This is where I'm going for my next MLT build.  An MLT-2018 build that may provide some very interesting test results, if my current White-QV / Woodward-M-E / Plasma-MHD based MLT spreadsheet is anything to go by.  "IF"...

Best, Paul M.
« Last Edit: 01/21/2018 07:09 pm by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
  • France
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 1059
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1262 on: 01/21/2018 07:00 pm »
Many thanks for this complete answer Paul :)
So, basically, Woodward's initial MLT design didn't allow capacitors to vibrate, hence he moved to the MET design with vibrating PZT discs and no EM coil. But at the cost of much lower frequency (acoustic).
While your own 2004 MLT design luckily incorporated this fundamental feature.
Do you know the reason why Woodward never moved over the years to a "new" MLT design based on your 2004 MLT, as it can work at much higher frequencies than METs? It's been 14 years…

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1263 on: 01/21/2018 07:41 pm »
Moving aside from the technical build discussions for a moment, is there any news on official progress with regards to MET? Based on the Estes Park presentations, it seemed that formal support and indisputable evidence for the existence of the effect has increased dramatically in recent times.

Are there any major official efforts underway to scale up the results to useful levels in the near term? Or is it still "10 years away" as it has been for the last 15 years or so?

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1380
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1431
  • Likes Given: 1904
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1264 on: 01/21/2018 08:49 pm »
Moving aside from the technical build discussions for a moment, is there any news on official progress with regards to MET? Based on the Estes Park presentations, it seemed that formal support and indisputable evidence for the existence of the effect has increased dramatically in recent times.

Are there any major official efforts underway to scale up the results to useful levels in the near term? Or is it still "10 years away" as it has been for the last 15 years or so?

This is what I am attempting. I have increased the disks from 19mm to 50mm, and the size of the massive end caps to nearly 1kg. I have also increased the available power from about 100W to over 400Wpk. However, I don't have a thrust balance. I just finished hanging a rotating test rig, suspended by a barrel swivel, S.S. leader line (AKA fishing tackle). It seems to work. I gave it a small push and it made several revolutions over about 10 minutes. I closed the windows to eliminate the drafts and it stabilized. Then it sat there practically motionless. However, when I stretch the cables to the amplifier, they're causing some torque. I took a break for a 2nd cup of coffee to consider what to do about it. ???


Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 854
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 937
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1265 on: 01/21/2018 09:33 pm »
Many thanks for this complete answer Paul :)
So, basically, Woodward's initial MLT design didn't allow capacitors to vibrate, hence he moved to the MET design with vibrating PZT discs and no EM coil. But at the cost of much lower frequency (acoustic).
While your own 2004 MLT design luckily incorporated this fundamental feature.
Do you know the reason why Woodward never moved over the years to a "new" MLT design based on your 2004 MLT, as it can work at much higher frequencies than METs? It's been 14 years…

Flux Capacitor

"Do you know the reason why Woodward never moved over the years to a "new" MLT design based on your 2004 MLT, as it can work at much higher frequencies than METs? It's been 14 years…"

At first blush, all I can think of is that Jim spent over five years pursuing his version of the MLTs using low-loss Vishay Ceramite Y5U dielectric caps running them at only 50 kHz but up to 8.0k Vac in the potted arrangement.  That arrangement did not function as well as needed without the aid of his MU80 load cell mounted in a vertical format.  When asked why Jim didn't push on to higher frequencies and added bulk acceleration at the 2016 Estes Park workshop, all Jim would say is that he had already moved on to his rotary work after 2006 and didn't have the RF equipment or expertise needed pursue HF driven MLTs even with the bulk acceleration problem taken care of. 

So Dr. Woodward and his team of which I'm a part, is now trying to make the purely acoustic MEGA-drive PZT stacks work and play at somewhat higher frequencies, ~100 kHz 1w verses the current 33 kHz by making them smaller in size, which should get his test articles up into the desired 1w operating frequency range while using an internal PZT stack strain gauge to monitor the 1w and 2w phase relationship.  How he intends to control the driven 1w/2w phase relationship is still up for grabs, but IMO it will take a dynamically tuned PZT layer in the stack that can tune the length the of stack to do it.

BTW, just so you know what raising the MEGA-drive's 1w drive frequency by a factor 3 means is that with the same driven power levels and SM-111 PZT material, the current MEGA-drive thrust output should increase by a factor of 3^6 power or ~2.5 uN x 729 = 1.823 milli-Newton (mN).  Jim already demonstrated this w^6 frequency scaling in his 2012 N5 MEGA-drive test article that was inadvertently self-generating the 3rd and 4th harmonics with a 33 kHz 1w signal due to some of SM-111 PZT material's w^2 electrostrictive responses when tuned to "just so" conditions, which are still hard to replicate.  A 2x increase in the effective drive frequency is equal to 2^6 = 64X increase in thrust, which is about 2.5 uN x 64 = 160 uN as shown in the below 2012 N5 slides.   And then we have the V^4 voltage scaling to pursue, which also takes improved cooling of the PZT stacks to implement.

Added the Woodward 2012, 130uN N5 Presentation.

Best, Paul M.
« Last Edit: 01/21/2018 10:11 pm by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1266 on: 01/22/2018 05:16 am »
Moving aside from the technical build discussions for a moment, is there any news on official progress with regards to MET? Based on the Estes Park presentations, it seemed that formal support and indisputable evidence for the existence of the effect has increased dramatically in recent times.

Are there any major official efforts underway to scale up the results to useful levels in the near term? Or is it still "10 years away" as it has been for the last 15 years or so?

Define "useful levels"...

The MET device produces low microNewton thrust levels in a physics lab test environment. Useful levels are for the current size, weight and power (and cost too!) are at least 1mN for a commercial device.

For any self-contained space drive, every order of magnitude thrust per unit (N/kWe) is a milestone.

Scaling from micronewtons to newton level thrust and higher requires a combination of amplification and multiplication. Various methods of amplification have to be analyzed and synthesized and then integrated into a design/build for a vehicle or platform. Multiplication is best produced by arrays.

For example, a rocket requires 1 N thrust. At 10 uN thrust, 100,000 units would be required. The best answer is not in it's present form. Too many obstacles to overcome.

However, for 1N thrust requirement using 1 mN thrust/unit. Then 1,000 units would be needed, 10 x 100 2D array or a cube 10x10x10 3D array which is less than a cubic foot.

There are other issues most notably the thrust output vs power input where the units are N/kWe. Practical applications require at least 0.1 N/kWe preferably 100 N/kWe.

The other issue of concern is a customer.

The NASA NIAC study will be finished soon.  For a long trip to the next star, the feasibility of long and slow acceleration works and is sufficient to obtain a peak velocity of around 40% c.  However, much work at the Basic R&D level - not Product R&D level - needs to be done.

The time horizon is filled with numerous issues and obstacles. Estimates vary from 5 to 15 years for reasons not of technology alone of scaling, test, and integration but the business side presenting a viable business case with a value proposition, a team than can execute a project plan, and the availability of funding. And a customer.

Time will tell.



Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 300
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1267 on: 01/23/2018 12:28 am »
Moving aside from the technical build discussions for a moment, is there any news on official progress with regards to MET? Based on the Estes Park presentations, it seemed that formal support and indisputable evidence for the existence of the effect has increased dramatically in recent times.

Are there any major official efforts underway to scale up the results to useful levels in the near term? Or is it still "10 years away" as it has been for the last 15 years or so?

This is what I am attempting. I have increased the disks from 19mm to 50mm, and the size of the massive end caps to nearly 1kg. I have also increased the available power from about 100W to over 400Wpk. However, I don't have a thrust balance. I just finished hanging a rotating test rig, suspended by a barrel swivel, S.S. leader line (AKA fishing tackle). It seems to work. I gave it a small push and it made several revolutions over about 10 minutes. I closed the windows to eliminate the drafts and it stabilized. Then it sat there practically motionless. However, when I stretch the cables to the amplifier, they're causing some torque. I took a break for a 2nd cup of coffee to consider what to do about it. ???

I was pondering coupling power transfer via a capacitance inductive coupling.  I attached an image below.  Never played with one before so its just a guess it should work.  Might cause some physical vibration but I am guessing fishing line might damp it?   

Not sure this is a good idea because it might change the downward force of the apparatus via the voltage on the capacitor.  For a torque this could change how far it would turn. 

Wondering what you would use to generate your test force to rotate the pendulum for calibration.

Oh a swivel.  So it isn't a pendulum?

I am assuming two opposing MET's.  One run at the proper phase relationship and the other ran in a null configuration?

Other problems might be transfer of data from the M.E.T.'s to equipment.

another thought this morning was a galinstan contact through the center below to convey power.
 Multiple channels might be possible.

Multiple capacitor rings might achieve a similar effect of multiple channels of galinstan
« Last Edit: 01/23/2018 01:35 pm by dustinthewind »

Offline PotomacNeuron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 262
  • Do I look like a neuroscientist?
  • MD
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1268 on: 01/24/2018 02:06 pm »

I was pondering coupling power transfer via a capacitance inductive coupling.  I attached an image below.  Never played with one before so its just a guess it should work.  Might cause some physical vibration but I am guessing fishing line might damp it?   

How will you make the top plate freely rotatable? How will you hang the weight of the apparatus? Note that there is no mechanical connection between the upper plate and the lower plate to bear weight. These details need to be figured out.

Quote
Not sure this is a good idea because it might change the downward force of the apparatus via the voltage on the capacitor.  For a torque this could change how far it would turn. 

No. The electrical force between the two plates is internal force. It will not change the downward force (in the upper fishing line).

Quote
Wondering what you would use to generate your test force to rotate the pendulum for calibration.

Oh a swivel.  So it isn't a pendulum?

I am assuming two opposing MET's.  One run at the proper phase relationship and the other ran in a null configuration?

Other problems might be transfer of data from the M.E.T.'s to equipment.
This is not a problem. A wireless connection (wifi, bluetooth, etc) will make it.

Quote
another thought this morning was a galinstan contact through the center below to convey power.
 Multiple channels might be possible.

Multiple capacitor rings might achieve a similar effect of multiple channels of galinstan


EW at NASA used this in their earlier (2014) experiment. Rfmwguy used this in his earlier configuration. He abandoned it because of the hard-to-control surface tension problem.
« Last Edit: 01/24/2018 02:07 pm by PotomacNeuron »
I am working on the ultimate mission human beings are made for.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 300
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1269 on: 01/24/2018 06:33 pm »

I was pondering coupling power transfer via a capacitance inductive coupling.  I attached an image below.  Never played with one before so its just a guess it should work.  Might cause some physical vibration but I am guessing fishing line might damp it?   

How will you make the top plate freely rotatable? How will you hang the weight of the apparatus? Note that there is no mechanical connection between the upper plate and the lower plate to bear weight. These details need to be figured out.

Quote
Not sure this is a good idea because it might change the downward force of the apparatus via the voltage on the capacitor.  For a torque this could change how far it would turn. 

No. The electrical force between the two plates is internal force. It will not change the downward force (in the upper fishing line).

Quote
Wondering what you would use to generate your test force to rotate the pendulum for calibration.

Oh a swivel.  So it isn't a pendulum?

I am assuming two opposing MET's.  One run at the proper phase relationship and the other ran in a null configuration?

Other problems might be transfer of data from the M.E.T.'s to equipment.
This is not a problem. A wireless connection (wifi, bluetooth, etc) will make it.

Quote
another thought this morning was a galinstan contact through the center below to convey power.
 Multiple channels might be possible.

Multiple capacitor rings might achieve a similar effect of multiple channels of galinstan


EW at NASA used this in their earlier (2014) experiment. Rfmwguy used this in his earlier configuration. He abandoned it because of the hard-to-control surface tension problem.

The top plate would need to be attached to the met apparatus it self.  There would need to be either a twisting of the top fishing line or if using a swivel then the swivel needs to be above the MET. 

A fully charged capacitor should experience attraction between the plates.  A sinusodal force should apply half this force I surmised .  Getting the plate perfectly flat with respect to the plate below may be a problem as with applied force this would cause tipping.

A single point that sits in the galinstan and doesn't move through the galinstan would probably have minimal friction.  As the radius increases from the center may cause problems due to dissipation to heat or turbulancevia increased velocity. 

One could figure in the damping as a factor.

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1270 on: 01/24/2018 08:29 pm »
There are some annoying gaps or misunderstanding in Woodward's Mach effect theory that need to be clarified especially the use solely of the a^2 term and ignoring the j v term. In this paragraph, v, a and j are always vectors. Finally, a discussion of where the Mach effect roadmap eventually leads to in terms of theory is briefly discussed.

I'd like to point out that the a^2 term in the Woodward effect is not the only term. From both the Stargates paper where force change was first published and in the MSAS book, the Woodward equation for force change is

F' = A a^2 + B j v

where A and B are constants and may be functions, scaling variables and even imaginary values where i is used to indicate potential energy.

From a GRT standpoint, a is a vector and j~0. So a can be relativistic; j simply is not.

SR might apply to velocity, v. However, one quickly runs into the jerk term, j, as a major obstacle to applying SR or even GR.

Frame dragging is a natural result that causes pause and not just be concerned with frames but with scaling, perhaps even scale dragging.

Another factor is parsing by expanding the Woodward force change equation

0. F' = A a^2 + B j v

Beginning with a two level scaled system, we have the following possibilities:

1. F' = A a(system) a(atomic) + B j(atomic) v(system)

2. F' = A a(system) a(atomic) + B j(system) v(atomic)


Furthermore, if we take a more generalized approach that only relativistic and quantum systems are participating we can used the above  for R for Relativistic (GR for general relativity) and quantum mechanic (QM), for a particle view we have:


1. F' = A a(R) a(QM) + B j(R) v(QM)

2. F' = A a(R) a(QM) + B j(QM) v(R)

Equation 1 makes little since since relativistic jerk is a change in acceleration at relativistic acceleration which is not clearly supported by GR and is beyond GR theory even though empirically that is what is measured especially in rotating system.

However, if only Newtonian kinematic force is allowed we have


3. F' = A a(GR) a(QM) + B j(N) v(QM)

4. F' = A a(GR) a(QM) + B j(QM) v(N)

 This makes a bit better sense.

So, assuming j(N) or j(QM) are approximately zero. Then we need to address the simplified equation

5. F' = A a(GR) a(QM)

and note whether we are speaking of the entire thruster acceleration, a1, or the nested active material acceleration a2.

6a. F' = A a1(GR) a2(QM)

6b. F' = A a2(GR) a1(QM)

If one ignores QM as well as QFT, then we can reduce the basic theory to a relativistic Newtonian view as seen in equations 7a and 7b. Again, a1 is the system level and a2 is the particle level (atomic and elementary) within a crystal.

7a. F' = A a1(GR) a2(N)

7b. F' = A a1(N) a2(GR)

Now we come to the important part of the show...for v<0.1 c we have Newtonian velocities  that could become
relativistic velocities through Newtonian acceleration. So we use the Lorentz factor as which speaks to the instant velocity but not the acceleration. For this, we need to jump to Einstein's Field Equations and probably Kaluza-Klein theory.

Even after relativistic Newtonian solutions are extended to a full General Relativity, there is the matter of what is going on at the quantum level as well as in fields. For an invariant charge based system, atoms and elementary particles have their own rule set leaving fields to the designer applying in increasing succession the  Dirac-Maxwell equations (fixed charge), Lorentz charge-force equation (moving charge and SR), and General Relativity (accelerating charge).

See "Solutions to the Lorentz force equation with fixed charge-to-mass ratio in globally hyperbolic spacetimes"
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0211100

After one calculates bonds both molecular and gravitational as well as E&M, one might have to use EM, QED or QCD to resolve issues such as Aharanov-Bohm. Axion-Electromagnetic theory is an attempt to resolve the strong force CP problem resulting in Visinelli-Dirac-Maxwell equations.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion

For Mach effects, there is the question on the role of quasiparticles such as electron-hole theory, squeezed states, and topological insulators. One should also include superconductors, BEC and BCS theory. All of this leads to quantum field theory as an area which needs to be studied.

To truly understand GR effects, one has to resort to four-vectors and tensors. The physics frontiers of gravitational effects may require an improved understanding not just of wave-particles and fields, but on dissimilar scales from the macro to the nano where quantum  wave-particles and fields become quasiparticles.

To that end, one has to strongly consider the study of the Transactional Interpretation of QM (TI theory) by Cramer and the QFT modifications to TI theory by Kastner.

Then one can truly appreciate Dr. Woodward's work in simplifying a change in force down to a^2.

David

David

Online HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1587
  • Liked: 1569
  • Likes Given: 415
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1271 on: 01/31/2018 12:48 am »
Videos from the Aerospace-sponsored workshop from fall 2017 are now being posted on ssi.org: http://ssi.org/advanced-propulsion-workshop-2017/

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6123
  • Likes Given: 5494
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1272 on: 02/01/2018 09:04 pm »
 "Propellant-less Space Propulsion from a Gravitational Effect Sourced by Energy Fluctuations."

https://www.youtube.com/c/SSISpaceStudiesInstitute


« Last Edit: 02/01/2018 11:42 pm by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6123
  • Likes Given: 5494
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1273 on: 02/03/2018 04:56 pm »
Here is a copy of my slide presentation

Offline mboeller

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1274 on: 02/04/2018 02:28 pm »
Your workshop slides confuse me completely.

The conclusion is, at least for a layman like myself complete strange. Is a woodward-drive (MEGA-Drive) possible after all or not? From the slides with all the negativity I would conclude that a MEGA-Drive is not possible, but I'm not sure.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6123
  • Likes Given: 5494
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1275 on: 02/04/2018 03:01 pm »
Your workshop slides confuse me completely.

The conclusion is, at least for a layman like myself complete strange. Is a woodward-drive (MEGA-Drive) possible after all or not? From the slides with all the negativity I would conclude that a MEGA-Drive is not possible, but I'm not sure.
To understand, it may be helpful to  listen to my presentation (see above https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1780819#msg1780819 ), particularly the answers to questions from the audience, in addition to seeing the slides you refer to.  It may also be helpful if you listen to Tajmar's presentation of the MEGA drive including questions and answers:


This is research work in progress at a level of Technology Readiness Level below 4 (see



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level ) involving basic technology research. 

Scientific rigor should not be viewed as "negativity" but as a normal part of the process of healthy science and technology research.  Both the theory and experiments point to interesting possibilities for research and development.   This "Mach Effect" drive research is active at universities and research centers in California, Canada, England and Germany towards moving this to a higher Technology Readiness Level.

Of course, the research is presently conducted hoping that it will indeed move to a higher Technology Readiness Level, while keeping scientific objectivity and rigor.
« Last Edit: 02/04/2018 04:55 pm by Rodal »

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1276 on: 02/04/2018 04:35 pm »
The Mach Effect thruster families are like an unfinished symphony in a new opera house. Does one work on the building, the instruments or the acoustics?  or all three...

The violins need to resonate on the same note at the same time. The brass section is a bit off key. The percussion is maddening. And the sharpness of the piccolo is not soothing just yet. The cacophony means the conductor has his work cut out for him to bring up the orchestra in practice to bring down the house in performance. And the sound techs have to remember it's suppose to be a symphony orchestra, not just a string quartet.   Right now, there is a single violin and it's not in tune apparently and can barely be heard. So not only is the theory unfinished, the music, the building and the performers all need work.

To reach Level 4 one would require a rigorous paper documenting the Basic R&D that is peer-reviewed and published in a top journal such as Physics Review Letters or Nature. One would also demand that theory and experiment are reflected in modeling and simulations.

Since the thrust is still in the low micronewtons, the efficiency is extremely low. As a transducer, there is not sufficient power efficiency to overcome thermodynamic limits.

For a single unit, both tuning and amplification are needed before one can claim victory. Keep in mind the single unit is a small stack of PZT discs that is pre-tensioned using machined parts to shape the excitation thrust.

So the status is very promising but does not deliver beyond Basic R&D and applied physics. Product R&D is still in the future  .

Basic R&D --> Applied Physics --> Product R&D --> Manufacturing --> Integration --> Application

Also, power signal testing uses a single unit, not two units in close proximity.   

At best, one could claim TRL 3, although in some circles, there is unfinished business for TRL 1 and 2.






Offline masterharper1082

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Onalaska, WI USA
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1277 on: 02/05/2018 12:42 am »
Capability of understanding (workable theory) and modeling is very helpful to improve the technology further, to better understand its limitations, and to accelerate development, but is largely irrelevant for TRL, which depends on practical usability, and can be achieved with thorough testing.  An extreme example: were Newton's equations of motion, kinematics, or Lagrangian dynamics with nonholonomic constraints required for the wheel to be developed into a useful tool?  I think we can agree that the wheel was at TRL 9 long before the theoretical developments.

Understanding/modeling capability is a separate issue, and there is no necessity to publish.  Ability to understand and model better than others can be a proprietary advantage.  It may not be the reality we desire to see for such a (potentially) groundbreaking technology, but for military or commercial applications, that's often how it happens.  Shawyer's breadcrumbs are a perfect example, no matter how theoretically unsatisfying they are.

mh

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 219
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1278 on: 02/05/2018 04:13 pm »
"Propellant-less Space Propulsion from a Gravitational Effect Sourced by Energy Fluctuations."

https://www.youtube.com/c/SSISpaceStudiesInstitute




Dr. Rodal, that's a great photo as it looks like you got Einstein's interest in your presentation!

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1380
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1431
  • Likes Given: 1904
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1279 on: 02/12/2018 09:32 pm »
MEGA UPDATE 2/12/18

I got side tracked and purchased a 5kg load cell. I received it over the weekend and built a scale to weigh my MEGA test devices with high precision. The issue I'm having is that the load cell output changes by only ~.24nV per micro-Newton. The Op Amps I had on hand have 22nV/rtHz of input Shot noise and when I amplify the signal, this noise swamps any signal smaller than about 100uN. I have a few more tricks though.

1. I ordered some very low noise Op Amps, 3.8nV/rtHz to test.
2. I also ordered the pressure sensitive resistor for Raspberry Pi that was suggested here, as opposed to the load cell. It can support up to 10kg and has >10Mohm open circuit resistance. It will arrive this week. With that, I hope to increase the sensitivity, but it will depend on how much current the device can withstand without temperature drift.

I've probably given up on the rotary test rig. There is no way to measure forces from it, which I feel I need to do, and the slip-ring wire hub I bought is not very smooth rolling. It takes more force than I expected to make it spin and the slip-ring's drag damps it very quickly. It's also difficult to keep it aligned so that there is only torque on the slip ring and no side-to-side wobbles when I turn it on and off. Lastly, even if I cover and box both devices, I still think it will push air due to the audible vibrations attached to a long flat board. It will not have a valid outcome, regardless if it spins or not. I don't have a huge vacuum chamber to hang it in and to do it right will cost a lot more than I am willing to spend.

2/13/18 - I received the force sensitive resistor, but it does not look promising. It seems to have memory and a large hysteresis. The spec says 10% and it responds so slow I can watch it creep down from 30k, 29.98k, 29.55k... over several minutes. When I remove a mass, it takes time to spring back to higher resistance.

Regarding the noise issue, I found that the majority of noise I was measuring was coming from the power supply, so I switch to 8 "AA" batteries for my 12V supply. The low noise Op Amps will arrive tomorrow, and then I'll solder up a circuit board keeping all the traces tight to avoid noise pickup. I'll be back....
« Last Edit: 02/14/2018 05:24 am by WarpTech »

Tags: