Mach Effect progress

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:25 pm

Betruger wrote:
Paul March answered to this:
You mean answered with?

I meant that Paul March answered to this... "this" being the post by Gi Thruster that I had quoted.

Obviously, "this" should not be followed by ":", because it makes it seem that "this" is what comes after the ":".

I am going to fix it.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:08 am

Y5U ceramic is very drifty stuff. An X5 or X7 would be better - if you can get the C values you need.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:53 pm

Yes well, the trouble with all of those is they're all sintered to repress the natural piezo action of the BaTiO3. Since that action is phase locked at 1w, it's useful to generate the bulk acceleration. Jim is so focused on this right now, he's settling for much lower energy density and using PZT.

If one wanted to provide the 1w acceleration in another way, say a voice coil or rotation; then I'd choose the Tecdia's ALTAS cap material Bruce and I had planned to use with a k of over 30,000. (X7 is I think around 6,000 and it is highly temperature dependent.) Makes normal BaTio3 look tame by comparison and is flat to 500 Mhz. The only better material I know of is TRS's PMN-85 but that's an electrostrictor so only generates 2w--good for M-E rectification into force but not for the base bulk acceleration which would need to be provided by other means. Trouble with it is it's very highly temperature dependent, but it has a k of 40,000.

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:04 pm

at NASA Propulsion Spaceflight Forums, GeeGee posted this interesting link to a paper by two brazilian professors, regarding the origin of mass due to gravity, related to Mach principle.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/111 ... 4228v1.pdf

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:02 pm

Yes, I saw it. I think this is a new spin on Mach's Principle that was not necessary and one has to wonder why they don't reference the guy who has been advocating Mach's Principle for the origin of mass these last two decades. Almost seems they never did a lit review. . .

I hate when that happens.

davaguco · Post by **davaguco** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:14 pm

Interesting paper.

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:32 pm

GIThruster wrote:Yes, I saw it. I think this is a new spin on Mach's Principle that was not necessary and one has to wonder why they don't reference the guy who has been advocating Mach's Principle for the origin of mass these last two decades. Almost seems they never did a lit review. . .

I hate when that happens.

Probably because Woodward is working on propellantless propulsion. The authors might not want their work associated with someone working on what some might call "fringe science."

It's unfortunate, but that's academic politics.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:13 am

Possibly, but if I had to guess, I'd think rather its because English is not their first language and they just aren't familiar with Woodward's work.

Could easily be though, that you're correct.

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:26 pm

I sincerely doubt any serious physicist might advance on the field without good knowledge of the english language. It seems Mario Novello has plenty of work published in english. I think even the anglophobic french from CERN know english pretty well.

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:28 pm

here is Mario Novello´s email, if anyone wants to contact and question him regarding Woordward

novello@cbpf.br

and Bittencourt´s:
eduhsb@cbpf.br (from his email address, I suppose his first name is Eduardo)

btw, from Mario Novello´s curriculum lattes
Francês Compreende Bem, Fala Bem, Lê Bem, Escreve Bem.
Inglês Compreende Bem, Fala Bem, Lê Bem, Escreve Bem.
Italiano Compreende Bem, Fala Bem, Lê Bem, Escreve Bem.
Espanhol Compreende Bem, Fala Bem, Lê Bem, Escreve Bem.

he understands well, speaks well, reads well and writes well in french, english, italian and spanish.

http://lattes.cnpq.br/5205000061462210

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:34 pm

After reading several ofJack's arguments and debates with Woodward, I'm seriously starting to suspect that he either does not want to understand mach effects or just likes to start arguments for fun. I mean, he still does not understand what phi is after Woodward has explained it dozens of times in e-mails.

I think Jack's motto in life is "if you don't agree with me, you're wrong."

paulmarch · Post by **paulmarch** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:21 pm

GeeGee wrote:After reading several ofJack's arguments and debates with Woodward, I'm seriously starting to suspect that he either does not want to understand mach effects or just likes to start arguments for fun. I mean, he still does not understand what phi is after Woodward has explained it dozens of times in e-mails.

I think Jack's motto in life is "if you don't agree with me, you're wrong."

GeeGee:

Exactly! And that is why I'm not responding to Jack anymore until he bothers to "listen" to what you told him, two or more times in a row.

BTW, did you see the URL to Woodward's Stargate paper that I posted on Woodward's e-mail distribution?

Best,

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:26 pm

Jack is like several others who have a vested interest that Jim's theory be wrong. If what Jim has works, then people won't take others like Jack much seriously. And to be plain about it, it's a wonder anyone takes Jack seriously at all. For many years, people have been explaining to him how to test his theories by experiment (first with the superconductor, later with the meta-material), and he not only avoids this, but argues about how no one can test it. He says it requires a Manhattan Project magnitude funding, which is just a way to deflect from the fact what he has is rubbish. Along with the deflecting goes his deliberate attempts to thwart Jim, which I object to so severely I have removed myself from Jack's reading list once more. It's all wasted time anyway.

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:18 pm

GIThruster wrote:Jack is like several others who have a vested interest that Jim's theory be wrong. If what Jim has works, then people won't take others like Jack much seriously. And to be plain about it, it's a wonder anyone takes Jack seriously at all. For many years, people have been explaining to him how to test his theories by experiment (first with the superconductor, later with the meta-material), and he not only avoids this, but argues about how no one can test it. He says it requires a Manhattan Project magnitude funding, which is just a way to deflect from the fact what he has is rubbish. Along with the deflecting goes his deliberate attempts to thwart Jim, which I object to so severely I have removed myself from Jack's reading list once more. It's all wasted time anyway.

I'm on Woodward's email list and have noticed that Sarfatti's constant haranguing nature has driven a lot of people to remove themselves from the list. This is disappointing because those people have more useful contribution to the effort.

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:55 pm

GIThruster wrote:Jack is like several others who have a vested interest that Jim's theory be wrong. If what Jim has works, then people won't take others like Jack much seriously. And to be plain about it, it's a wonder anyone takes Jack seriously at all. For many years, people have been explaining to him how to test his theories by experiment (first with the superconductor, later with the meta-material), and he not only avoids this, but argues about how no one can test it. He says it requires a Manhattan Project magnitude funding, which is just a way to deflect from the fact what he has is rubbish. Along with the deflecting goes his deliberate attempts to thwart Jim, which I object to so severely I have removed myself from Jack's reading list once more. It's all wasted time anyway.

I think his attitude also has to do with Woodward debunking his meta-material approach. Jack seems takes this as a personal insult rather then simply an objective evaluation. I think a few weeks ago Jack said something to the effect of "If my meta-material approach doesn't work, then nothing will."