Mach Effect progress

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby birchoff » Sun Dec 28, 2014 12:23 am

I think my caution in regards to unleashing ME electrical energy generators on humanity is responsible. That said if someone can prove that we aren't adversely speeding up the end of the universe, I am all good. Mainly because ME thrusters are already going to be leveraged to the hilt by every being in existence to day and in the future. Since we have no better way of moving around in Space I can live with that trade off. But doubling down on it by adding energy generation when we have Fuel Cells, Solar, Geo Thermal, Fission, Fusion, etc (Yes I know some of these can only be used on a planetary body or within close proximity of a star) Is just short sighted. The universe is the very definition of a B*tch and I do not expect any free lunches from her. So lets only use the things we have when we have no understanding of the ramifications of the alternatives.

93143
Posts: 1131
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:51 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby 93143 » Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:56 am

A large part of my lack of concern is due to the fact that we don't yet have the technology in question, and by the time we do the theoretical ramifications will be much better understood.

I actually disagree with the idea that M-E use accelerates the expansion of the universe. But my attitude is based on Newtonian-trained intuition (I think I understand where the idea came from and why it's wrong), and while I could easily back it up, it wouldn't be with GR, never mind anything that directly handles dark energy. So I could well be wrong.

All the energy sources you list are far more limited than this one. M-E energy (possibly combined with wormholes) could actually let us avoid the expanding-shell condition that resource-limited model interstellar civilizations end up in. That's not something to throw away without a very good reason. The universe is very big, and it's going to end anyway. Are we here to preserve it, or live in it?

...

It's good to keep such concerns in mind. As long as you don't end up like this guy, we should be able to figure it out.

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby birchoff » Sun Dec 28, 2014 4:36 am

93143 wrote:A large part of my lack of concern is due to the fact that we don't yet have the technology in question, and by the time we do the theoretical ramifications will be much better understood.

I actually disagree with the idea that M-E use accelerates the expansion of the universe. But my attitude is based on Newtonian-trained intuition (I think I understand where the idea came from and why it's wrong), and while I could easily back it up, it wouldn't be with GR, never mind anything that directly handles dark energy. So I could well be wrong.

All the energy sources you list are far more limited than this one. M-E energy (possibly combined with wormholes) could actually let us avoid the expanding-shell condition that resource-limited model interstellar civilizations end up in. That's not something to throw away without a very good reason. The universe is very big, and it's going to end anyway. Are we here to preserve it, or live in it?

...

It's good to keep such concerns in mind. As long as you don't end up like this guy, we should be able to figure it out.


I agree with you mostly. I guess I am of the mind that while those energy sources are limited, I think we would have a long way to go before outgrowing them. By then I fully expect us to have a proper understanding of what ME does and its effect on the universe. What I would rather not happen, is everyone gets drunk on the ME punch bowl and forgets to fund the research needed to understand the implications. Which is a possibility I could honestly see happen, since no one likes the guy who sounds like they want to take away the punch bowl.

As for whether we are hear to save the universe or live in it. I have no answer to that. I would just like us to have the universe long enough to find the answer. So I guess I am in favor of a little of both.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Betruger » Mon Dec 29, 2014 1:42 am

If you thought NIMBYs were bad, wait till you serve em this potential calamity on as polished plate as a clear set of physical laws. The fuss over potentially hurrying the end of the universe would make AGW's look like a retirement home food fight. Government busybodies will wet themselves.

But it's still a whole new day however that shakes out. With ME tech as it's projected, we have a big part of the space and matter scarcity problems bitten off. All we need then is to do the same for time.
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby birchoff » Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:06 am

So I popped over the NSF EmDrive thread to see if there was anything insightful going on and noticed a line of discussion that pretty much starts here. Which eventually leads to the interesting discovery here. Now what is interesting about Rodal's comment is the following

Rodal wrote:Mendel Sachs has a website:

http://mendelsachs.com/


In his website he has posted several of his articles. For example this relatively recent one on the Mach principle and origin of inertia:

http://mendelsachs.com/wp-content/uploads/articles/the-mach-principle.pdf

In that reference, Sachs convincingly argues against the approach to Mach's Principle followed by Woodward (-of course- he does not mention Woodward), he considers the particle-antiparticle pairs of the quantum vacuum having a most important effect, while the effect of distant stars is negligible:


Sachs wrote:I have found in my research program in general relativity, that the primary contribution to the inertial mass of any local elementary matter, such as an ‘electron’, are the nearby particle-antiparticle pairs that constitute what we call the ‘physical vacuum’. [The main developments of this research are demonstrated in my two monographs: General Relativity and Matter, and Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity]. A prediction of this research program is that the main influence of these pairs on the mass of, say, an electron comes from a domain of the ‘physical vacuum’ in its vicinity, whose volume has a radius that is the order of 10^(-15) cm. Of course, the distant stars, billions of light-years away, also contribute to the electron’s mass, though negligibly, just as the Sun’s mass contribution to the weight of a person on Earth is negligible compared with the Earth’s influence on this person’s weight! Nevertheless, it was Mach’s contention that in principle all of the matter of the closed system – the nearby as well as far away constituents – determines the inertial mass of any local matter.


(Bold added for emphasis) ==> this is the anti-thesis of Woodward's approach to Mach's principle!


Now as earth shattering as that sounds I took some time to read the referenced paper. Now I was expecting the paper to generally explain why the inertial mass of any local elementary matter is goverend by the nerby particle-antiparticle pairs of the 'physical vacuum'. I instead found that the paper really covered how Mach's principle can be found in the Theory of Relativity; not sure if the derivation is similar to Woodward's, as high level math is not my strong suit. It looks like I would have to shell out a few hundred bucks on amazon for his book General Relativity and Matter(The follow up Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity is also available for a few hundred on amazon).

Now aside from the fact that the description of the books content on amazon along with reviews seem to show that Sachs basically united General Relativity with Quantum mechanics. I wonder if GiThruster or anyone else that is closer to this wouldnt mind commenting on it.

My personal view is I doubt that it matters much; if it turns out that the order of importance, when deriving matter's inertial mass, starts with the matter that is closest (Sachs view point) instead of the matter that is farther away (Woodwards viewpoint). However, I am not a physicist so I am open to being corrected on this.

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby birchoff » Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:39 am

I realized while commenting about the sachs paper on NSF that the real reason I dont believe the order matters is as follows

* If Sach's is right then Mach's Principle is apart of Einsteins General Relativity theory. Which Woodward is also claiming.

* From my perspective (NOT A PHYSICIST) I get the impression that for the Mach Effects being claimed by woodward it isn't so much that we start with the farthest matter to determine the effects on local matter. Instead it is more important that the inertial mass of any local matter depends on all the matter in the universe.

* In the Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity book. It looks like from the reviews that Sachs also proves the Feynman & Wheeler Absorber theory (which is the "delayed action at a distance" being referenced by the customer review). This is important because it is also being used by Woodward to explain how inertial actions are instantaenous.

Customer in review(the longest one) wrote:...

The "delayed action at a distance"of Feynman and Wheeler is restored to currency. The "advanced" solutions take their place beside the "retarded" solutions in a single, complete space-time.

...

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Mon Dec 29, 2014 3:10 pm

birchoff wrote:Now aside from the fact that the description of the books content on amazon along with reviews seem to show that Sachs basically united General Relativity with Quantum mechanics. I wonder if GiThruster or anyone else that is closer to this wouldnt mind commenting on it.

I read a bunch of Sachs on GR and Mach's Principle back around 2006. I'm sorry to say, I don't recall much but a few generalities of that study. It seemed to me at the time that Sachs in an authentic genius, who demonstrates quite a bit of creativity and novelty in his work and that work has survived the peer review process. This is a big deal. However, I do recall there were quite a few things where it seemed to me he was pursuing novelty for the sake of novelty, and making some pretty unsupported assertions that give him this novelty. And while I appreciate thinking outside the box, and that we absolutely cannot have the answers we seek without this kind of thinking, I don't think there's redeeming value in doing this for its own sake. You want to have reasons for your suppositions. My take away from Sachs was that he is brilliant, and he could be right, but he never gave any reasons to think so.

Now in the time since I read Sachs I'll own I have grown suspicious of anyone who speaks of the "physical vacuum". That's a call sign for a lot of nonsense. That's what the ZPFers love to talk about and it's an oxymoron. There's nothing physical about the vacuum. The particles created are all virtual, which means they have no mass. They are not real. They are by definition not real. This is why we call them "virtual". So far as I'm aware--and I am not an intellectual historian of gravity physics--better to talk with Woodward on this subject--when Bernie Haish, Hal Puthoff and Al Rueda penned their polarizable vacuum theory of GR back in the 90's (I think it was?) they gave birth to what has become this modern obsession with ZPF, and it gets mischaracterized as "physical". At the time, they didn't realize that if these virtual particles gravitated, they would collapse the universe. It was in response to this objection, that they decided these particles don't gravitate but do mediate momentum transfer--what is necessary for any ZPF interaction to be useful. And honestly, this is nonsense. I've corresponded with Hal on several occasions and I like him. He's a nice guy. He and George Hathaway invited me to join their think tank back in 2005 but I respectfully declined. He's also brilliant physicist. He is however, completely wrong on this issue. It cannot be that virtual particles do not gravitate and yet mediate momentum exchange, for if this were so, their inertial and gravitational masses would be different, and this would mean that both Einstein's Equivalence Principle (EEP) and General Relativity (GR) are WRONG. And really, when people are selling these good about the physical vacuum, they ought to tell you what the cost is of this theory. Einstein needs to be wrong. GR needs to be wrong. And with so much evidence that GR is right, I just don't see any value added by entertaining these notions. I have no sympathies with ZPF theory.

So if that's what Sachs is talking about, I just don't have time to think on it. It's a hopelessly wrong distraction. And I'd note to you, all these ZPF schemes, the polarizable vacuum schemes, the QVF scheme--they all violate conservation, EEP and GR. All of them. So unless you're willing to sacrifice the principe of conservation on the alter if quixotic physics, I can't recommend spending your time there.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Diogenes » Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:57 pm

Somewhere I recall reading that the capacitance used in the test devices is 500 pf? Is this correct?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Mon Dec 29, 2014 7:29 pm

Diogenes wrote:Somewhere I recall reading that the capacitance used in the test devices is 500 pf? Is this correct?

I'm sorry but I don't recall, and I built a dozen of them. Each series was different. Each material used is different. Why do you ask?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Diogenes » Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:01 pm

GIThruster wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Somewhere I recall reading that the capacitance used in the test devices is 500 pf? Is this correct?

I'm sorry but I don't recall, and I built a dozen of them. Each series was different. Each material used is different. Why do you ask?



Just to get an idea of what energy density your team has been trying to use. I am interested in attempting a slightly different approach from what I can see that you and Dr. Woodward have been trying.


I'm currently trying to get into contact with some people i've done business with in the past about creating a crystal mass sensor with a capacitor permanently bonded to it (maybe with a capacitor bonded to either side and driven in opposite phases) and with a connection to drive the capacitor separately from the crystal. These people have plenty of experience with loaded crystal mass sensors and I think they can quickly tell me how much mass these things can have attached and still oscillate properly. (the size of possible capacitor will depend on how much mass can be bonded to the side of the crystal.)


I'm pretty sure the capacitance that it is possible to bond to the crystal will not be so high as 500 pf, but given that the frequency will be so much higher than what I understand Dr. Woodward has been working at, (30khz) and given that according to prediction the effect scales up dramatically with frequency, i'm assuming that the combination of frequency and capacitance which they should be able to manufacture should be capable of manifesting a detectable effect and should also be far more controllable than what you guys have currently been working with.

Manipulating phase angles at 30-60 mhz ought not be too difficult, (varactor in the oscillator circuit. Can use a dual trace scope to watch the phase angle difference.) and this approach will have the added advantage of being able to give us positive as well as negative thrust simply by manipulating the phase angles. The force difference between positive thrust and negative thrust ought to increase the ability to detect mono-directional thrust on an arc balance.


While i'm thinking about it, reversing phases on the capacitor(s) at the frequency of resonance of the mass on the arc balance ought to start it to oscillating, and this ability to induce oscillations ought to serve to make the effect even more detectable on a high Q arc balance.

It will make it visually obvious that something is going on. People should be able to see the balance swinging back and forth in response to the phase switching.



I don't *THINK* it will be terribly expensive to get them to build one of these and as soon as I can get a response from them i'll see what they have to say about it. (I think they are closed for the Christmas holiday season.)


It just seems like a relatively low budget way of testing the theory. If it turns out to be plausible, I think i'll give it a try.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Mon Dec 29, 2014 9:49 pm

Well, there's a lot to respond to there. Just a few observations and suggestions:

Most piezoactive materials have their capacitance drop off dramatically about 1 Mhz. You'll therefore need to measure the capacitance on frequency.

Instead of calculating what the resonance should be given any specific amount of damping (and you can find the equations online at PiCeramics.com in their online piezo university), what you might do is use a PLL tuned generator that seeks out the natural resonance of the actuator and runs at that frequency. There's a great little one you can often get cheap on EBay I think made by Sonotec. Note though, this is ultrasonic, not VHF, and I'm not sure where you can find a PLL circuit for that frequency. Most piezo manufacturers sell some power supply, but PLL circuits are rare and fantastically useful. Eagleworks got nowhere until they built their own PLL circuit.

This stuff is hard. I know it sounds simple, but it is very hard to do. Most people don't realize it, but it takes about a year just to build and characterize the balance. So don't jump in until you know what the entire project will cost in time and effort. Trust me, lots of people have the reaction to do this, and almost none of them get it done.

If you find your experiment will run on a Mettler H20, let me know and I'll have mine sent to you. I think the max load is 260mg and 0.005mg precision. If you can stray that low on the mass scale, which gets easier when you go to higher frequency; you might use a Mettler. Duncan Cummins built an entire MLT experiment for 2 Mhz inside a coke can, power system included. It's amazing what you can do with modern switching power supplies. That sort of experiment holds promise for a budget, but you're looking at around 1-5 Mhz I would say, and you need to check that your capacitance doesn't drop off at whatever frequency you run at. I'd do that before you buy more than the ceramic, which is very cheap. Here's your likely first, best choice which I put Jim onto and where he has gotten all his PZT the last 5 years:

http://www.steminc.com/ They also sell on Ebay and you can get reduced rates if you buy what they have on clearance. They often offer little bits that are the proper thickness for VHF.

Note too, that each of these ceramics have a critical frequency or thickness, that when you go faster or thinner, you no longer need to preload the ceramic with clamping. So you can hugely drop the mass of the system if you go fast enough to lose the clamp. You still need an acoustic mirror or Bragg reflector, but that can be made very light and so fit your experiment on something like the Mettler.

Jim will offer advise and you should contact him and take it if you proceed, as otherwise, you'll just repeat old mistakes. This stuff is not nearly as easy as one would guess. And let me know what you're doing and I'll be as supportive as I can.

BTW, Jim did once do an experiment with a pair of actuators run 180* out of phase with the active mass between them. Tom Mayhood called this a "shuttler" geometry. PiCeramics calls it an "antagonistic" displacement actuator geometry.
Last edited by GIThruster on Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Diogenes » Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:50 pm

GIThruster wrote:
Most piezoactive materials have their capacitance drop off dramatically about 1 Mhz. You'll therefore need to measure the capacitance on frequency.




Not following you here. I'm sure the piezo device will have some capacitance or other, but I don't see how it is relevant to the idea of bonding a capacitor to one or both sides of the piezo crystal.


I finally reached one of the engineers that works at this company, and he finds the idea intriguing, and has actually sent an email to another expert of which he knows, to solicit some ideas and advice.


He says that they can produce a 1 inch disk that will resonate at 5 mhz. I asked him how heavy of a mass could be bonded onto the side and still allow it to work decently, and he said they plate between 5,000 and 10,000 angstroms of gold onto the side of one of these devices.


My quick calculations indicate this is a mass of 0.00376 grams. Not much to work with.


He suggested the idea of using aluminum as the plate because it has a strong affinity to bond with the crystal. I then suggested aluminum oxide followed by another aluminum plate. We both noted that the complication might be in how to attach the outside connection to the capacitor. I would guess it needs to be pretty springy and tolerant of very fast vibration. :)


What sort of dielectric constants have you guys been using? Aluminum oxide works out to be about 9.



GIThruster wrote:
Instead of calculating what the resonance should be given any specific amount of damping (and you can find the equations online at PiCeramics.com in their online piezo university), what you might do is use a PLL tuned generator that seeks out the natural resonance of the actuator and runs at that frequency. There's a great little one you can often get cheap on EBay I think made by Sonotec. Note though, this is ultrasonic, not VHF, and I'm not sure where you can find a PLL circuit for that frequency. Most piezo manufacturers sell some power supply, but PLL circuits are rare and fantastically useful. Eagleworks got nowhere until they built their own PLL circuit.



I was planning to build my own stuff. RF stuff is right up my alley. If they can build me the device, I think I can figure out how to drive it properly.






GIThruster wrote:
This stuff is hard. I know it sounds simple, but it is very hard to do. Most people don't realize it, but it takes about a year just to build and characterize the balance. So don't jump in until you know what the entire project will cost in time and effort. Trust me, lots of people have the reaction to do this, and almost none of them get it done.



I would not have thought that building a balance would be all that difficult. Especially when i'm talking about testing a device in the gram range of mass.




GIThruster wrote:If you find your experiment will run on a Mettler H20, let me know and I'll have mine sent to you. I think the max load is 260mg and 0.005mg precision.



I'm thinking the device is going to weigh more than that.


GIThruster wrote: If you can stray that low on the mass scale, which gets easier when you go to higher frequency; you might use a Mettler. Duncan Cummins built an entire MLT experiment for 2 Mhz inside a coke can, power system included.



How did that work out? I would think a self contained unit would be pretty persuasive. Can't argue about induced static fields, thermal effects or em effects if it's all inside a coke can.



GIThruster wrote:It's amazing what you can do with modern switching power supplies. That sort of experiment holds promise for a budget, but you're looking at around 1-5 Mhz I would say, and you need to check that your capacitance doesn't drop off at whatever frequency you run at.



Well we are looking at aluminum oxide, and it produces a dielectric constant of 9 at 1 mhz according to this site. Obviously we want as great of an energy density as we can get, but ease of construction is also a factor.



GIThruster wrote:
I'd do that before you buy more than the ceramic, which is very cheap. Here's your likely first, best choice which I put Jim onto and where he has gotten all his PZT the last 5 years:

http://www.steminc.com/ They also sell on Ebay and you can get reduced rates if you buy what they have on clearance. They often offer little bits that are the proper thickness for VHF.

Jim will offer advise and you should contact him and take it if you proceed, as otherwise, you'll just repeat old mistakes.



This I will do should it be feasible to proceed with the idea.



GIThruster wrote: This stuff is not nearly as easy as one would guess. And let me know what you're doing and I'll be as supportive as I can.



Well thank you, and I commend you for the effort you've put into this project so far. As difficult as it may be to get one of these things working, it strikes me that it is orders of magnitude less difficult for an amateur than is making a polywell fusion reactor.


I'm thinking that Push-Pull design (capacitors bonded to both sides of the crystal) looks awful tempting. I like balance and symmetry, and this idea fulfills that yearn. If we can figure out how to bond and feed a capacitor on one side of a crystal, I don't see why we couldn't do the same for both sides.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby GIThruster » Mon Dec 29, 2014 11:22 pm

Diogenes wrote: I'm sure the piezo device will have some capacitance or other, but I don't see how it is relevant to the idea of bonding a capacitor to one or both sides of the piezo crystal.

If you use an antagonistic geometry, bonding is not much an issue since you need to clamp the components together anyway so they're not going anywhere.

I asked him how heavy of a mass could be bonded onto the side and still allow it to work decently, and he said they plate between 5,000 and 10,000 angstroms of gold onto the side of one of these devices.

You can bond whatever mass you want between the plates but note that the higher the mass, the slower it will resonate. The real issue is to use a very high energy capacitor. Years ago, Bruce Long and I conspired to build just such a shuttler, and I purchased 4 undiced wafers of ALTAS cap material from Japan for this (and the Mettler), before Bruce found he could not drive them with less than 10KW since the capacitance was so high and the voltage so low. That polycrystal wafer BaTiO3 had a dielectric constant (k) of 30,000 which is more than single crystal BaTiO3 (about 5,000). PZT usually has a k of about 1,000 and all these piezocermaics lose about 1/3 their k when clamped.

Sure wish I still had those wafers as they were expensive and you'd be welcome to them but alas, they are gone. I got them opecial order for 4 wafers here:

http://www.tecdia.com/us/products/hf/altas.php

but again, bare in mind that it is very difficult to drive something that has such high capacitance, with low voltage, and the higher frequency you go, the harder this is to do. Bruce has his PhD in EE from Penn State, and he was really challenged here. Whatever you choose, remember that force generated scales with the square of the k, and you really want k in the thousands at whatever frequency you choose. PMN has a k of about 20,000 up to 1 Mhz when properly sintered in a lead oxide atmosphere and inside a 2*K thermal bandwidth. I do not recommend a high thermal dependence. You also might try the PMN-R from Northrop Grumman as that looks like it has interesting qualities and is much more thermally stabile than pure PMN. It is however an electrostrictor, not a piezoelectric, so you need to drive with 1w+2w waveform.

The best balance for the buck for something that is not light, is the ARC Lite Jim uses. He might have a parts list on hand he would send you if he knew what you were doing.

And yeah, the shuttler geometry does generate much closer to a true sinusoidal oscillation. You can get your acceleration here, once you get the piezomechanical linking coefficient of whatever actuator materials you choose.

http://www.spaceagecontrol.com/calcsinm.htm

The Steminc folks should have what you need. You also might consider a wafer of pure, single crystal BaTiO3. Or even sintered crystal but sintered without the mechanical attenuation agents. Say if you were to contact a BaTiO3 sputtering targets manufacturer, you could find something past 99.99% pure. Just don't order one. Order at least 4. You'll burn one just finding out what is the max voltage you can safely use and they will wear out too. It's relatively cheap to special order sets of 4.

There are some other, more shall we say. . .special ceramic options, and if you are still serious about this a month from now, I might even tell you what they are. Took me 8 years to find them and I promise, you would benefit by trying them out. :-)
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby Diogenes » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:01 am

9 is a long way from 30k. Perhaps there is a way to bind one of these higher K materials.


Perhaps i'm not grasping something. How do you get decent movement when you clamp all these disks together in a stack? Is the bolt stretching and relaxing at 30khz?


What I am envisioning is a free floating crystal

Image


with a capacitor bonded to one or both sides. The crystal will both push and pull the capacitor, and if you make one with a capacitor on each side, the crystal would be separating them when one is more massive and the other is less massive while it would be pulling them when the opposite is true.


It just seems to me that leaving one end of the capacitor(s) free floating in space is worth a try. Clamping them into a stack just seems counter-intuitive. It just seems to me like there would be too many problems associated with this approach. When the crystals are shrinking how do you know the disks are not separating at the junctions between them? If you put enough force loading on the stack to prevent this, I would expect it to heavily dampen the effect.

With a very lightweight capacitor and solid bond between crystal and capacitor, you don't have to clamp down on it to get the capacitor to move inward and it doesn't have to use so much force to get outward displacement because it isn't having to fight the clamping effect.


Just thinking out loud here.


Perhaps this is a nonsense approach. Perhaps no reasonable size of capacitor can be affixed to a resonator in this manner. I'll have to see what the crystal manufacturing expert tells me about this idea before I chuck it. I've sent him the link to the Boing Boing write up on Dr. Woodward's efforts and explained that more technical write ups are available but I felt that article got the basic concept across pretty well.


My thinking is that if we can bind a good K material to the crystal and attach an electrode to the outside of it, we can build up the size of the effect by paralleling everything to the extent necessary. (just as I showed that they did with rf power transistors.)
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Postby birchoff » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:22 am

I think what Diogenes is calling out is that even though we have a lot of material as far as theory and results from experiments what he probably needs is a schematic breakdown of how the tested devices are built with a general reason for why that particular design was used.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests