The idea is that a the mass of the piezoelectric material changes with the square of the rate of change of the energy in the material. You can even make the mass go negative.
Note: This is a violation of conservation of energy. You can lift an arbitrarily large mass upwards in a gravitational field with an arbitrarily small amount of energy, as only the square of the change in energy wrt time causes the mass change. One can then remove the changing energy that is applied to the capacitor and "drop" the mass (say, with a string on a generator) and obtain a net positive energy output.
To test this effect of mass change, in 2009 I put a piezoelectric capacitor on a tuning fork and applied a voltage at the resonate frequency of the tuning fork + capacitor device. This would amplify the expected magnitude of the Woodward effect so it could be measured. The experimental design was such that I expected to see the fork vibrate if a changing mass was affected by gravity on the fork. I measured the amplitude of the tuning fork with an inductive sensor and I had worked out the parameters of the fork so I could tell with 2 digit precision what the driving force (the mass change under the force of gravity) was. A "naive" application of the Woodward equation would have been detected, tho' it was argued that the Woodward equation was a difference equation and I was doing it wrong.
After accounting for the piezoelectric effect itself and for effects of the earth's magnetic field by nulling them out, I could measure no change in mass of the capacitor.
I found no mass change. Zippo. Nada. Zilch.
This experiment was done for my master's project under the Guidance of Dr. John G. Cramer at the University of Washington. We did not publish because I more tests were required for verification of the null result. As Dr. Cramer was retiring and I was graduating, I didn't do more testing.
I would note that there is a math error in the derivation of the Woodward effect's theory. If one uses Sciama's result of (Phi+phi)/c^2 = -1/G, one cannot treat the speed of light as a constant and phi as a variable.
This experimental result could be disputed by noting that I was checking for a gravitational mass change and not an inertial mass change. The original experimental design (aka "Mach Guitar") checked for an inertial mass change. However, the original experiment couldn't be done as the mass of the capacitor significantly changed the resonate frequency of the Mach Guitar. I mathematically studied the experiment, and found that I needed a guitar "string" as thick as a tuning fork tine.
This experiment was difficult to construct. I had planned on repeating the experiment to do a statistical study of the results, and to try driving the fork to see if I could detect a change in INERTIAL mass, but personal issues and a lack of a High voltage amplifier prevented me from proceeding. I also was fairly confident in my initial result, and felt it was a bit like beating a dead horse.
With criticisms like this, one wants to be fair, so lets start by recognizing that whomever wrote this, was certainly NOT current on M-E theory as of 2009. At least, this is how I would understand the handful of factual and conceptual errors involved that I'd like to correct.
The idea is that a the mass of the piezoelectric material changes with the square of the rate of change of the energy in the material. You can even make the mass go negative
This is part of the idea. The change in energy must be accompanied by a simultaneous acceleration relative to the distant stars to yield a Mach-Effect (ME) or transient mass fluctuation. It appears the writer does not currently appreciate this though, the piezo action in the ceramic could have been used to generate this acceleration, but we can't tell from the description of the experiment.
Note: This is a violation of conservation of energy. You can lift an arbitrarily large mass upwards in a gravitational field with an arbitrarily small amount of energy, as only the square of the change in energy wrt time causes the mass change.
This is a factual/conceptual error caused by the writer's neglect to account for the gravinertial contribution into the M-E device. Electricity is not the only form of energy in, and he has here failed to account for the fact the M-E device is a gravinertial transistor, not a transducer.
To test this effect of mass change, in 2009 I put a piezoelectric capacitor on a tuning fork and applied a voltage at the resonate frequency of the tuning fork + capacitor device. This would amplify the expected magnitude of the Woodward effect so it could be measured. The experimental design was such that I expected to see the fork vibrate if a changing mass was affected by gravity on the fork.
I trust rather than "amplify", what the writer here means is "transduce" the change in mass into a change in position that is then measured. If this accurately describes the experimental design this is a very poor design. First of all, the mass fluctuation is not equal in the positive and negative fluctuation--the negative fluctuation will always be larger, so one cannot hope to get sinusoidal motion in this way. The experiment is trying to cause the tuning fork to resonate, but it cannot resonate because it has different masses at different times. Poor conceptual design is probably the reason this experiment yielded a null result.
The experimental design was such that I expected to see the fork vibrate if a changing mass was affected by gravity on the fork. I measured the amplitude of the tuning fork with an inductive sensor and I had worked out the parameters of the fork so I could tell with 2 digit precision what the driving force (the mass change under the force of gravity) was.
Can't tell what "two digit precision" is but presuming this is percent of the unfluctuated mass, and that the experimenter was correct concerning what portion of the cap should be considered "active mass", given sufficient mass fluctuation one would hope you'd see it, were the motion sinusoidal.
A "naive" application of the Woodward equation would have been detected, tho' it was argued that the Woodward equation was a difference equation and I was doing it wrong.
Em, "it can be argued"? Is this serious? Is the experimenter claiming he doesn't know whether the experiment ought to work or not?
I would note that there is a math error in the derivation of the Woodward effect's theory. If one uses Sciama's result of (Phi+phi)/c^2 = -1/G, one cannot treat the speed of light as a constant and phi as a variable.
No. There is no error in the equation. If there were, the experimenter ought to have brought this to the attention of Woodward and this should have been dealt with through peer review, since the equation has passed peer review. Stating the equation is wrong AFTER an experiment hasn't worked and without handling the issue properly is not what ought to be acceptable in order to earn a degree. I will note that the writer apparently does not understand the difference between a "constant" and an "invariable" because he has not been trained in advanced field theory, and should not be indulging in critiquing physics he does not understand. the proper course was certainly to go to Woodward through Cramer and get this sorted out by those who can do the physics.
This experimental result could be disputed by noting that I was checking for a gravitational mass change and not an inertial mass change.
No really, it cannot. Woodward's theory relies upon EEP or Einstein's Equivalence Principle in its strong form, and asserts that there can be no way to ever tell the difference between gravitational and inertial mass. Anyone handling the theory ought to know this.
IMHO, since the experimenter did not complete the experiment, and claims he did not verify his own results, I am at odds to see not only how he is making any judgements about a "dead horse" but likewise, how he was awarded his masters. Sounds like he deserved an "incomplete".
If indeed the experiment was not performed sufficient to validate its own test results, there is no reason to presume it was performed correctly. I have dozens of questions in this regard. For instance, since the experimenter betrays no understanding of the need for bulk acceleration relative to the distant stars, I would first want to look at how the ceramic's piezo-action was set up on the tuning fork. Does the ceramic form a quarter wave or half wave resonator? If it is not set up to maximize displacement of the ceramic, the ceramic is not going to produce the required acceleration necessary to generate M-E. This, accompanied by several dozen other issues is reason enough to understand a null result.
In short, I see three reasons this setup as I understand it would not work. First is that the ceramic is not attached to a reaction mass that will force the ceramic to accelerate in one direction. Rather the opposite. Since the fork is intended to displace, the accelerations will likely be minimal and sum to zero. Second, if there were a mass fluctuation, because it is not sinusoidal and not equal in its positive and negative extensions, it would not be in phase with the natural resonance of any connected resonator. Third, since the experimenter doesn't demonstrate an understanding for the need for bulk acceleration, one wants to ask what sort of ceramic he used. Was it sintered to repress or enhance the piezo-action of the material? Woodward's own work from just 5 years ago neglected this issue, and the caps he chose were sintered to repress rather than enhance. Now we all know better, so just how old was this experiment and what sort of materials were used?
Given the need for bulk acceleration relative to the distant stars was extremely well understood by 2007, and this experimenter did his experiment in 2009, it reflects very poorly on the experimenter that he did not do a sufficient literature review before designing the experiment.
So in summary, it appears to me the experimenter did not understand his own experiment very well, did not complete his experiment, and did not publish his experiment because of these things. So why is he now writing about it in a public forum?
Final note is to wonder why this masters student was completely ignorant of the rotator work done in 2008, on precisely the same topic, that demonstrated conclusively the existence of M-E. Had the student done a literature review of the field, he would no doubt have designed around the need for bulk acceleration and he did not. In fact, had he been aware of the work at that time, he would no doubt have designed a replication of the rotator, which clearly demonstrated unrectified M-E in just the same way as he was after. Instead, he designed an experiment that cannot work because it does not provide for bulk acceleration.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
