Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 449715 times)

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4356
  • Liked: 655
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1340 on: 04/04/2018 04:45 AM »
Since Mach Effect is said to scale with the cube of oscillation frequency, and since it's the tiniest of devices which would be able to achieve these highest possible oscillation frequencies, then does anybody have a blueprint for what such an idealized nano-mechanical oscillator would look like, and what an overall experimental apparatus based on this would look like?

Even if the fabrication of it can't be done easily or immediately - what is it that you'd be trying to build?

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1341 on: 04/04/2018 03:22 PM »
Since Mach Effect is said to scale with the cube of oscillation frequency, and since it's the tiniest of devices which would be able to achieve these highest possible oscillation frequencies, then does anybody have a blueprint for what such an idealized nano-mechanical oscillator would look like, and what an overall experimental apparatus based on this would look like?

Even if the fabrication of it can't be done easily or immediately - what is it that you'd be trying to build?

Keep in mind the research is still at the basic and applied physics level, not at the product engineering level. Only single units have been tested and verified. Scaling by amplification and unit multiplication is required to reach useful thrust levels.

A forced, damped harmonic oscillator system using parametric amplification that produces transient mass by the periodic controlled phase collision of acoustic and electric waves in a dielectric. The resulting momentum change is stored in a bulk mass.

In the proposed probe starship of NASA NIAC the unit should continuously operate for 30 years. A large array may be required, but the preliminary calculations suggest that a velocity peak of over 40% the speed of light is doable.


Offline Asteroza

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1342 on: 04/05/2018 06:06 AM »
Array side-effects will be of interest, whether phased array style effects occur. Not just collective thrust boost, but thrust vectoring as well.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4356
  • Liked: 655
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1343 on: 04/05/2018 09:12 AM »

Keep in mind the research is still at the basic and applied physics level, not at the product engineering level. Only single units have been tested and verified. Scaling by amplification and unit multiplication is required to reach useful thrust levels.

But in order to better prove out the basic effect, wouldn't it be better to achieve high oscillation frequencies, in order to make the effect stand out more?

Mach Effect may be bleeding edge, but mechanical oscillation itself is not. So just in regards to the challenge of achieving the highest possible mechanical oscillation frequency - how can that be done? What known examples might be the best candidates for doing that?


Quote
A forced, damped harmonic oscillator system using parametric amplification that produces transient mass by the periodic controlled phase collision of acoustic and electric waves in a dielectric. The resulting momentum change is stored in a bulk mass.

In the proposed probe starship of NASA NIAC the unit should continuously operate for 30 years. A large array may be required, but the preliminary calculations suggest that a velocity peak of over 40% the speed of light is doable.

Yes, I saw the video of Dr Fearn's previous NIAC talk. The point was raised that the faster you travel, the better the Mach Effect couples with the Rest Of The Universe - what the heck does that mean, and what are the implications of it?!?!
« Last Edit: 04/05/2018 12:58 PM by sanman »

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1344 on: 04/05/2018 05:30 PM »

Keep in mind the research is still at the basic and applied physics level, not at the product engineering level. Only single units have been tested and verified. Scaling by amplification and unit multiplication is required to reach useful thrust levels.

But in order to better prove out the basic effect, wouldn't it be better to achieve high oscillation frequencies, in order to make the effect stand out more?

No, the effect needs to be seen in detail. One can miss a lot of subtleties and nuances by going faster, higher or farther in one leap. Establish a good foundation of basic research that can be built upon first.

At higher frequencies, there are emergent properties as well as roll off frequencies limiting experiments to a specific bandwidth.

Quote
Mach Effect may be bleeding edge, but mechanical oscillation itself is not. So just in regards to the challenge of achieving the highest possible mechanical oscillation frequency - how can that be done? What known examples might be the best candidates for doing that?

Oscillation is in every part of physics from mechanical to electric and magnetic to gravity and to the particle, wave and quantum levels.

Mechanical Oscillation is simply a means to an end. Vibrating crystals (frequency crystals for example) are a form of mechanical oscillation. So one needs to look at oscillations that are below bulk mechanical and look at molecular, atomic and elementary particle oscillations to replace the mechanical.

There are issues with going higher frequency of mechanical oscillations. Heating is the most obvious issue. More heat is expected. Processes will be less efficient. Less detail can be seen. So there are test equipment issues and limits. It's easy to talk about the possibilities using acoustic, hypersonics, RF, microwaves, Terahertz and optics. However, even within those topics are lab requirements that far exceed budgets and even technical expertise.

So one could find the highest mechanical frequency experimentally. However, there is a differently equipped lab with yet another PhD who not only sees outside of the acoustic box, but RF and microwave as well.

One might want to use the Hydrogen atom to explore the limits of mechanical oscillation.

Quote
A forced, damped harmonic oscillator system using parametric amplification that produces transient mass by the periodic controlled phase collision of acoustic and electric waves in a dielectric. The resulting momentum change is stored in a bulk mass.

In the proposed probe starship of NASA NIAC the unit should continuously operate for 30 years. A large array may be required, but the preliminary calculations suggest that a velocity peak of over 40% the speed of light is doable.

Yes, I saw the video of Dr Fearn's previous NIAC talk. The point was raised that the faster you travel, the better the Mach Effect couples with the Rest Of The Universe - what the heck does that mean, and what are the implications of it?!?!

Ask Dr. Fearn

D

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4356
  • Liked: 655
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1345 on: 04/05/2018 06:01 PM »
Ask Dr. Fearn

D

I've tried that, but my emails don't get responses - maybe we can pester Paul March for answers.

Offline Bob Woods

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 297
  • Salem, Oregon USA
  • Liked: 416
  • Likes Given: 1312
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1346 on: 04/05/2018 07:08 PM »
Ask Dr. Fearn

D

I've tried that, but my emails don't get responses - maybe we can pester Paul March for answers.
Speculation? If the thrust is a result of the creation of transient mass in the PZT stack thereby gaining inertia from the universe as a whole, then increasing relativistic speeds also increases the mass of the spacecraft and everything in it including the PZT stack and any transient maass created.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3165
  • Liked: 584
  • Likes Given: 847
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1347 on: 04/05/2018 07:59 PM »
From what I saw on the NBF website, they are planning to use a nuclear reactor.
For exploration in the inner solar system, solar arrays may be able to provide more power with less mass. Maybe, they should look into mars missions with the proposed higher thrust versions of the MEGA drive using solar arrays for power. I am curious how that would play out. Also what are the predictions for the mass of the 1 N MEGA drive if there are any? Just orders of magnitude would already be interesting to know.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4356
  • Liked: 655
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1348 on: 04/05/2018 09:34 PM »
Speculation? If the thrust is a result of the creation of transient mass in the PZT stack thereby gaining inertia from the universe as a whole, then increasing relativistic speeds also increases the mass of the spacecraft and everything in it including the PZT stack and any transient maass created.

One thing I was thinking of is that if the coupling between transient mass and RestOfUniverse keeps increasing with travel velocity, then it means that each oscillation is a bigger "pull" - so your increments get coarser and coarser - ie. jerkier and jerkier.

Eventually, do you start experiencing a bumpier and bumpier ride -  ie. the oscillations transitioning away from smooth acceleration and giving rise to jerky acceleration?

In that case it might be necessary to cryogenically freeze your passengers to make them structurally strong enough to survive the bumpiness/jerkiness at very high travel velocities.

Could there possibly be a limiting Barrier Law here, so that as you reach some sufficiently high travel velocity, your oscillations progressively generate enough jerkiness to make your spacecraft shake apart?
(Heh, ironically, isn't that what used to happen to aircraft during early attempts to breach the sound barrier? An altogether older type of Mach effect)
« Last Edit: 04/05/2018 09:48 PM by sanman »

Offline Bob Woods

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 297
  • Salem, Oregon USA
  • Liked: 416
  • Likes Given: 1312
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1349 on: 04/05/2018 09:56 PM »
Speculation? If the thrust is a result of the creation of transient mass in the PZT stack thereby gaining inertia from the universe as a whole, then increasing relativistic speeds also increases the mass of the spacecraft and everything in it including the PZT stack and any transient maass created.

One thing I was thinking of is that if the coupling between transient mass and RestOfUniverse keeps increasing with travel velocity, then it means that each oscillation is a bigger "pull" - so your increments get coarser and coarser - ie. jerkier and jerkier.

Eventually, do you start experiencing a bumpier and bumpier ride -  ie. the oscillations transitioning away from smooth acceleration and giving rise to jerky acceleration?

In that case it might be necessary to cryogenically freeze your passengers to make them structurally strong enough to survive the bumpiness/jerkiness at very high travel velocities.

Could there possibly be a limiting Barrier Law here, so that as you reach some sufficiently high travel velocity, your oscillations progressively generate enough jerkiness to make your spacecraft shake apart?
(Heh, ironically, isn't that what used to happen to aircraft during early attempts to breach the sound barrier? An altogether older type of Mach effect)


I think we have a long time to wait until we have to worry about passengers  :)   Any vehicle produced will be robotic. The speed limitation that was mentioned probably has most to do with interstellar dust and atoms that a spacecraft would push against.

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1426
  • Likes Given: 1894
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1350 on: 04/05/2018 10:00 PM »

Keep in mind the research is still at the basic and applied physics level, not at the product engineering level. Only single units have been tested and verified. Scaling by amplification and unit multiplication is required to reach useful thrust levels.

But in order to better prove out the basic effect, wouldn't it be better to achieve high oscillation frequencies, in order to make the effect stand out more?

Mach Effect may be bleeding edge, but mechanical oscillation itself is not. So just in regards to the challenge of achieving the highest possible mechanical oscillation frequency - how can that be done? What known examples might be the best candidates for doing that?


Quote
A forced, damped harmonic oscillator system using parametric amplification that produces transient mass by the periodic controlled phase collision of acoustic and electric waves in a dielectric. The resulting momentum change is stored in a bulk mass.

In the proposed probe starship of NASA NIAC the unit should continuously operate for 30 years. A large array may be required, but the preliminary calculations suggest that a velocity peak of over 40% the speed of light is doable.

Yes, I saw the video of Dr Fearn's previous NIAC talk. The point was raised that the faster you travel, the better the Mach Effect couples with the Rest Of The Universe - what the heck does that mean, and what are the implications of it?!?!

Just FYI: I am not done with my thrust experiments yet. I've been delayed due to a series of unfortunate events in my other life, and it doesn't help that I threw out my back again last week either.

However, what I have seen at the output from the 50mm PZT disk I use to measure mechanical amplitudes is that, at higher frequency the mechanical motion is significantly reduced. At the lowest resonant frequency the mechanical oscillation amplitude is orders of magnitude higher than it is at the higher resonant frequencies. So simply changing the frequency doesn't equate apples to apples. One must also significantly increase the driving voltage to the stack to achieve the same amplitudes, and by which I am limited by the available voltage and power from my amplifiers. At 200Vpk, I get the largest response at the lowest resonant frequency, but I have not measured any "thrust" yet. I still need to update my circuit per my previous status reports to improve the resolution down to single-digit micronewtons of force.

Also, don't get your hopes up too high. Even if the MEGA does work by coupling to gravity, gravitons like photons, still only carry momentum p=h/λ, regardless if I use hypothetical QFT models or my own model of Quantum Gravity. IMO, I do not expect it to produce more thrust than a well columnated photon rocket. It's not a warp-drive. It's just a simpler, more cost effective design for a photon rocket.


Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1351 on: 04/05/2018 10:43 PM »
From what I saw on the NBF website, they are planning to use a nuclear reactor.
For exploration in the inner solar system, solar arrays may be able to provide more power with less mass. Maybe, they should look into mars missions with the proposed higher thrust versions of the MEGA drive using solar arrays for power. I am curious how that would play out. Also what are the predictions for the mass of the 1 N MEGA drive if there are any? Just orders of magnitude would already be interesting to know.

Beyond Mars, solar cell power is a waste of energy since there is not enough payback or efficiency.

To be a true interplanetary craft, one need to have at least fission or fusion sources, or even a matter-antimatter drive.

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1352 on: 04/05/2018 10:52 PM »
Speculation? If the thrust is a result of the creation of transient mass in the PZT stack thereby gaining inertia from the universe as a whole, then increasing relativistic speeds also increases the mass of the spacecraft and everything in it including the PZT stack and any transient maass created.

One thing I was thinking of is that if the coupling between transient mass and RestOfUniverse keeps increasing with travel velocity, then it means that each oscillation is a bigger "pull" - so your increments get coarser and coarser - ie. jerkier and jerkier.

Eventually, do you start experiencing a bumpier and bumpier ride -  ie. the oscillations transitioning away from smooth acceleration and giving rise to jerky acceleration?

In that case it might be necessary to cryogenically freeze your passengers to make them structurally strong enough to survive the bumpiness/jerkiness at very high travel velocities.

Could there possibly be a limiting Barrier Law here, so that as you reach some sufficiently high travel velocity, your oscillations progressively generate enough jerkiness to make your spacecraft shake apart?
(Heh, ironically, isn't that what used to happen to aircraft during early attempts to breach the sound barrier? An altogether older type of Mach effect)

There is a duty cycle. However, the expectation is that phase control will reduce the drama of jerk force. If you have a large array of devices you would not want them to all fire off like 1 cylinder. Instead, per cycle there should be a thousand time slots.

Besides, jerk force is already accounted for at the unit level in Woodward's "Making Starships and Stargates"
In Dr. Woodward's book there is a calculation on the change in force, F'. I'll simplify the equation to vector level, and without relativistic corrections.


F' =  A a^2 + B j v

where A and B are not just constants but functions, and j is jerk or jolt.

By dispersing the "jerk" over the time of a single cycle at relativistic velocities, a structural engineer might be able to calculate the forces and limits using tensor analysis and relativistic correction to array and unit dynamics.


Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1353 on: 04/05/2018 10:56 PM »

Could there possibly be a limiting Barrier Law here, so that as you reach some sufficiently high travel velocity, your oscillations progressively generate enough jerkiness to make your spacecraft shake apart?
(Heh, ironically, isn't that what used to happen to aircraft during early attempts to breach the sound barrier? An altogether older type of Mach effect)

Right now, a mass object traveling the speed of light is limited to less than 70% but I'd have to find the paper that did the calculations based on astronomical data. What happens is that at that velocity there is a compression wave that forms and there is a forward energy spike emission at the nose which results in additional drag.  The propulsion efficiency goes down and so incremental improvements in relativistic velocity dramatically slow.


Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4356
  • Liked: 655
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1354 on: 04/06/2018 12:19 AM »

There is a duty cycle. However, the expectation is that phase control will reduce the drama of jerk force. If you have a large array of devices you would not want them to all fire off like 1 cylinder. Instead, per cycle there should be a thousand time slots.

Besides, jerk force is already accounted for at the unit level in Woodward's "Making Starships and Stargates"
In Dr. Woodward's book there is a calculation on the change in force, F'. I'll simplify the equation to vector level, and without relativistic corrections.


F' =  A a^2 + B j v

where A and B are not just constants but functions, and j is jerk or jolt.

By dispersing the "jerk" over the time of a single cycle at relativistic velocities, a structural engineer might be able to calculate the forces and limits using tensor analysis and relativistic correction to array and unit dynamics.

So this does imply limits on how much oscillation is allowable at a given velocity of travel. And it sounds like the faster you're traveling, the lower the limit will be on the oscillation or transient mass.

A phased array could be sensitive to individual unit failure in a way that a non-phased array would not be.
What happens if enough individual units were to fail while traveling at a very high velocity?

What are the failure modes of a phased array in this situation?
« Last Edit: 04/06/2018 12:24 AM by sanman »

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1355 on: 04/06/2018 03:36 AM »
There is no limit I'm aware of.

With impulse, at the top end, there is a transition from flat to open curved space which is understood commonly as warp.  Keep in mind there is no experiment definitively warping spacetime.

Once open curved space begins to curl, there is "wormhole like" formation which is traveling in a tube or conduit.

Only the first two terms define

To summarize:

Impulse - Flat space
Warp = open curved space, riding the spacetime wave
Wormhole - close curve space, must be benign

In terms of energy density, the Schwinger limit is where energy density change goes from linear to non-linear. This limit is not reached by any process I'm aware of... although there may be an astronomical object that demonstrates this limit.

>> A phased array could be sensitive to individual unit failure in a way that a non-phased array would not be.

Nonsense. It's the other way around.

D



Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3165
  • Liked: 584
  • Likes Given: 847
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1356 on: 04/06/2018 03:23 PM »
From what I saw on the NBF website, they are planning to use a nuclear reactor.
For exploration in the inner solar system, solar arrays may be able to provide more power with less mass. Maybe, they should look into mars missions with the proposed higher thrust versions of the MEGA drive using solar arrays for power. I am curious how that would play out. Also what are the predictions for the mass of the 1 N MEGA drive if there are any? Just orders of magnitude would already be interesting to know.

Beyond Mars, solar cell power is a waste of energy since there is not enough payback or efficiency.

To be a true interplanetary craft, one need to have at least fission or fusion sources, or even a matter-antimatter drive.
Which is why I said "inner solar system", which is what I was talking about. Jupiter, Saturn and co are nice, but right now I would be happy to reach mars in a reasonable amount of time and preferably with a more compact spacecraft than what they proposed.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4356
  • Liked: 655
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1357 on: 04/06/2018 03:54 PM »
There is no limit I'm aware of.

With impulse, at the top end, there is a transition from flat to open curved space which is understood commonly as warp.  Keep in mind there is no experiment definitively warping spacetime.

Once open curved space begins to curl, there is "wormhole like" formation which is traveling in a tube or conduit.

Only the first two terms define

To summarize:

Impulse - Flat space
Warp = open curved space, riding the spacetime wave
Wormhole - close curve space, must be benign

In terms of energy density, the Schwinger limit is where energy density change goes from linear to non-linear. This limit is not reached by any process I'm aware of... although there may be an astronomical object that demonstrates this limit.

>> A phased array could be sensitive to individual unit failure in a way that a non-phased array would not be.

Nonsense. It's the other way around.

D

Okay, fair enough - so you're saying that phased array will provide flexibility through its control over all the independent array elements.

So will we be able to detect the "gravito-acoustic" signature of a spacecraft using Mach-drive?
Could we use atom optics / atomic interferometry for this purpose?

Since gravity has a ridiculously long range (thus enabling us to interact with TheRestOfTheUniverse), and since a Mach drive would be generating some coherent high-frequency wave pattern, then there should be something available to detect.
Since matter responds to gravity, and since coherent matter (eg. Bose-Einstein Condensates) can be used to do interferometry, then atom optics / atom interferometry should should be able to detect gravity waves.

Instead of having SETI listen for radio signals from other planets, would it be feasible to have them listen for high-frequency gravity waves, in the hopes of detecting Mach-drive signature from anybody who might be cruising past our neighborhood?

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1358 on: 04/06/2018 07:46 PM »
There are two types of phased arrays - emitter array and thrusters arrays.

In the emitter, the RF or other EM wave, even photons and gravitons, a 2D array is the usually limit although so-called parasitic arrays are really antennas.The possibility of using a 2 1/2 D array (units on cards, cards in a box) or a 3D is an issue since the materials, devices and emissions interefer with each other.

Mr. Hansen spoke in 2016 at Estes Park about emitter arrays. The MET is not an emitter array. The mass-energy changes are internal only resulting in macro momentum change.

In contrast, a thrust array especially built of units from MET devices (MET, MEGA, MLT) do not use propulsive emissions; MET's do not emit. In MET devices momentum is changed *without emission*  .

I should note that no space drive variant - MEGA or emDrive - has undergone full EMI testing for a single device let alone the standard tests for two devices. Unit EMI testing would precede any array testing.

The potential of a non-emitting array is the ability to stack in 2 1/2 D or 3 D the thrusters since they do not interfere with each other. This alone is a breakthrough for MET, MEGA and other variants.


Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4356
  • Liked: 655
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1359 on: 04/06/2018 10:48 PM »
There are two types of phased arrays - emitter array and thrusters arrays.

In the emitter, the RF or other EM wave, even photons and gravitons, a 2D array is the usually limit although so-called parasitic arrays are really antennas.The possibility of using a 2 1/2 D array (units on cards, cards in a box) or a 3D is an issue since the materials, devices and emissions interefer with each other.

Mr. Hansen spoke in 2016 at Estes Park about emitter arrays. The MET is not an emitter array. The mass-energy changes are internal only resulting in macro momentum change.

In contrast, a thrust array especially built of units from MET devices (MET, MEGA, MLT) do not use propulsive emissions; MET's do not emit. In MET devices momentum is changed *without emission*  .

I should note that no space drive variant - MEGA or emDrive - has undergone full EMI testing for a single device let alone the standard tests for two devices. Unit EMI testing would precede any array testing.

The potential of a non-emitting array is the ability to stack in 2 1/2 D or 3 D the thrusters since they do not interfere with each other. This alone is a breakthrough for MET, MEGA and other variants.

When you say METs are not "emitters" - are you simply referring to the fact that they don't expel any propellant? They could be emitters in another sense - in the sense that they emit tiny gravity waves, or tiny amounts of gravitons. If you feel METs don't even do that, then can you explain why? Because something has to be emitted, in order for METs to interact with TheRestOfTheUniverse (or "gravinertial field").

Nextly, if we can agree that tiny gravity waves (or tiny amounts of gravitons) are being emitted, then wouldn't these generate some kind of interference, as all such waves do?