Mach Effect progress

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Post by GIThruster »

I'd be interested to see what you have on LSNO.

I'm not much concerned with loss tangent. In fact, CCTO operates better when heated well above room temperature and a higher loss tangent would serve to heat it. Either way, a fully engineered propulsion system is going to nee active thermal management so I just leave the loss issue aside.

If you know of studies that show 50,000 k at Ghz frequencies, that is much more interesting to me.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

kurt9
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

"Colossal Dielectric Constant up to gigahertz at room temperature"

S. Krohns,1 P. Lunkenheimer,1,a Ch. Kant,1 A. V. Pronin,2 H. B. Brom,3 A. A. Nugroho,4
M. Diantoro,5 and A. Loidl1

APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS 94, 122903 2009

http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3105993

I have a pdf copy of this paper I got from a research library near my home.

I agree with you about the need for active temperature control for a propulsion device.

AcesHigh
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

chrismb wrote:
AcesHigh wrote:@ChrisMB: if GIT is not an engineer nor a physicist, obviously that doesnt mean Woodward theories are incorrect, only that you should not be arguing high level physics with him since it will lead to nothing. He is baseing what is he saying on what true physics experts said, but obviously his knowledge can´t match that of Woodward, Paul March, etc.

So imho its kind dishonest that you are trying to get HIM in a corner.
No chrismb posts have tried to 'corner' GIT since he came out of the closet and clarified that he operated to a subjective form of 'philosophers instinct' kind of logic, because no further chrismb posts have been made.

So is it not 'kind of dishonest' that AcesH would suggest a logical 'dishonesty' when this is the first time GIT has properly stated that he cannot deal with 'high level physics'?
hmm... true. ChrisMB got me.

AcesH 'appeal to authority' fallacy
appeal to authority is only a fallacy if I were using the words of a few phisicists experts (Woodward, March, etc) to prove a point which however the vast majority of the physics community doesnt agree.

it is not a falacy if its the opinion of the majority of the experts on the subject, nor if I am saying they are better suited to ARGUE AND DISCUSS with ChrisMB. I am not saying they are right, just that the dialogue would be better because they have a better understanding of the physics behind it than GIT.
Last edited by AcesHigh on Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:26 am, edited 2 times in total.

AcesHigh
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

however, if ChrisMB wants to argue more about "appeal to authority" being always a fallacy, then ChrisMb should talk to GIT, since he is the philosopher.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Any appeal to authority is a fallacy in that it is a circumvention of reason. You're passing the issue off to others instead of looking at it yourself. The problem comes that there are indeed times in life when we should pass an issue off to the real experts.

You don't take your car to the mechanic and tell him what the problem is. You tell him to find the problem because he's the expert. You don't tell your doctor how to diagnose you, or your lawyer how to answer a tort. There are lots of places in life where it is perfectly acceptable to rely upon expert testimony, expert ability, expert insights into an issue you are not yourself equipped to handle.

For someone in dispute with someone like chris, on the topic of transforms, the person who does not know is always best suited to say :"I do not know, but. . ." and then it is appropriate to point to an authority figure. Note that this is not circumventing reason. It is not short-circuiting the logical argumentation process. When someone says "I do not know" the process is already ended. Now we're looking for other valuable resources for belief. "Einstein is a pretty sharp guy. I'm gonna take his word on this gravity thing until I can figure it out for myself" is not a logical fallacy. It's a perfectly sensible response to the fact you don't have the tools to understand so can't make your own logical argument.

The problem with all this is, chris has his whole self-worth tied up in his need to impress people with how right he is all the time, so he's never willing to admit he doesn't understand an issue and needs to take someone like Einstein at his word. He never says "I don't know, but. . ." That would kill chris, to admit he doesn't know. So in a sense for chris, there is never an end to the argument. That all by itself is very, very sad.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

AcesHigh wrote:it is not a falacy if its the opinion of the majority of the experts on the subject
It is a fallacy if a thing is claimed true because it is the majority opinion of experts.

The opinion itself is not the fallacy, it is forming an argument that purports to conclude an objective fact based on that opinion that would be the fallacy. An opinion can only beget at best another opinion. A proven fact, or proven logical statement, can beget other facts or opinions.
AcesHigh wrote:the person who does not know is always best suited to say :"I do not know, but. . ." and then it is appropriate to point to an authority figure. Note that this is not circumventing reason. It is not short-circuiting the logical argumentation process. When someone says "I do not know" the process is already ended.
The first part of this is correct. There is no 'limit' nor fallacy involved in deferring to the opinion of someone more experienced. The fallacy comes in saying that they must be right and the less experienced person is wrong. chrismb, himself, has had so many encounters with garages and lawyers who came to the wrong conclusion and he had to take action to recover the situation, in helping them to come to correct their shaky understanding of what they are supposedly expert at, that he just goes on-and-on about it if you get him on the subject.

So saying 'I don't know, I'll go by xyz's opinion' is certainly legitimate, but it is not the end of the process because in accepting that opinion it is an obligation to either a) explain why you accept the reasoning of that opinion or at least be able to show that reasoning to others if you don't understand it yourself or, b) accept that it may be wrong if someone else comes up with an alternative explanation, albeit that you may 'prefer' the 'expert' opinion over another.

So the fallacy is not, itself, saying you prefer an expert opinion, it is founding an argument on the assumption that they are right and/or dismissing other arguments only because of that opinion.

In the case of AcesH, this is not where his fallacy lay. His fallacy lay in his description of those experts to whom GIT had referred;
AcesHigh wrote:He is baseing what is he saying on what true physics experts said
This should have read 'on what some/particular physics experts said'. The discrimination between 'false physics experts' and 'true physics experts' is the fallacy here. It pre-empts AcesH discriminating between these two species of physics experts, which would be a subjective judgement.

Tom DeGisi
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:27 pm

GIThruster and chrismb

Post by Tom DeGisi »

Wow. GIThruster and chrismb just put out a pair of fantastic posts. Well done.

303
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:18 am

Post by 303 »

i think they used to be married

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

Post by GIThruster »

Oh no. I can promise you my ex is much prettier than chris.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

CaptainBeowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am

Post by CaptainBeowulf »

I don't remember anyone posting this in this thread, apologies if they did.

It may point towards some oddity of gravity and inertia which may be the Woodward-Mach effect or whatever signal Woodward's experiments are detecting (assuming it's not noise):

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/50 ... y-anomaly/

kurt9
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

This question is directed at GIThruster more than others.

I have a copy of the Woodward book and have just finished the middle section on experimental efforts and results. The current equations for the Mach effect thrust use the piezoelectric and electrostricture constants, not the dielectric constant, of the capacitive material.

Does CCTO have high values for both of these constants? The paper I have on LSNO says nothing about these two constants. Perhaps these materials might not be useful for Mach technology.

The second issue is piezoelectric vs. electrostricture effects. It appears the key difference between these two effects is that the piezoelectric effect is linear with applied voltage whereas the electrostricture effect is quadradic (squared) with the applied voltage. This suggests that electrostricture generates more acceleration of the materials than piezoelectric effect. Optimizing the electrostricture effect in finding or developing a new material would be the best way to go.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Piezo-materials and especially the soft ones like what Jim is using at present, have a fairly pronounced electrostictive coefficient. The piezo-resonse is at 1w or the fundamental frequency, and electrostriction is at the 2w or second harmonic frequency. When a Mach Effect is genenrated, it generates at the 2w, so a 2w recrificatiion is needed. That's what Jim is using the electrostriction for. The 1w piezo combines ith the 1w dE to genrate a 2w Mach Effect that is rectified into force by the 2w electrostrictive action.

PMN and CCTO are cubic in their state of normal use, so they are not polar. It's nice that they can't depolarize but another result of this is they have no piezo-response at all. PMN has some rhombic cells based on temperature distribution but basically it's cubic. No Piezo action.

The way to use these electrostrictors, or even piezo materials with little or no electrostictive action, is to drive them with a 1w+2w signal. Jim has done this previously, back before he was using the soft Steminc PZT and in fact, it was a surprise that it had so much electrostriction he could use just a sine wave.

Moving to a material with a single elctro-mechanical response does however have benefits. Obviously first is it can't be depolarized so it should last much longer. Even when it's overheated and changes phase, there is no impressed polarization on the material to be ruined.

Another advantage is if you have to provide both 1w and 2w waves, you can alter their relative magnitudes, their relative phase etc., and you then have the opportunity to demonstrate new mastery. You can for example by altering the phase between the 1w and 2w signal, switch the direction that the thruster drives in and even shut it off while still powering it. This provides new controls that should impress. Jim can't do this now because the relative phase between the 1w and 2w mechanical actions is set in the material--there's no control over it. Of course this is still waiting on the next gen power system and new materials but this is the direction Jim is headed.

Also, PZT has a k of about 1,000 at 100 Khz. CCTO has a k of about 50,000 at that frequency. CCTO also has better dielectric strength so it can be pushed harder. Same with PMN-PT. Whatever next gen material Jim selects, I think it's clear we should expect a serious jump in thrust signature. He's going to need to swap out the tension bearing for the next size up I think. :-)
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

AcesHigh
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

chrismb wrote:
AcesHigh wrote:it is not a falacy if its the opinion of the majority of the experts on the subject
It is a fallacy if a thing is claimed true because it is the majority opinion of experts.
[/quote]

my english is not good enough to enter into such discussion with my own words, so I will leave some wikipedia quotes here

"Argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is an inductive-reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously: either the authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both.[1][2][3]"

"Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism.[1][2] First, when the inference fails to meet the first condition (inexpert authority), it is an appeal to inappropriate authority, which occurs when an inference relies upon a person or a group without relevant expertise or knowledge of the subject matter under discussion.[3]
Second, because the argument from authority is an inductive-reasoning argument — wherein is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises — it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such a determinative assertion is a logical non sequitur, because, although the inductive argument might have merit — either probabilistic or statistical — the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically necessary.[4][5]"

in other words, no, appeals to authority are not always fallacious.


The opinion itself is not the fallacy, it is forming an argument that purports to conclude an objective fact based on that opinion that would be the fallacy. An opinion can only beget at best another opinion. A proven fact, or proven logical statement, can beget other facts or opinions.
yeah, now define what is a "proven" fact. According to GIT, flying saucers are proven facts.


The first part of this is correct. There is no 'limit' nor fallacy involved in deferring to the opinion of someone more experienced. The fallacy comes in saying that they must be right and the less experienced person is wrong. chrismb, himself, has had so many encounters with garages and lawyers who came to the wrong conclusion and he had to take action to recover the situation, in helping them to come to correct their shaky understanding of what they are supposedly expert at, that he just goes on-and-on about it if you get him on the subject.
its useless to discuss anything if all appeal to authority is wrong, because noone can study in depth all subjects. If I start arguing with creationists, I will have to resort to studies and opinions of geologists, botanists, physicists, zoologists, paleontologists, etc, molecular biologists, etc.

how the hell can I say that yes, a bacteria´s flagellum can have developed without divine intervention unless citing other´s works?


So saying 'I don't know, I'll go by xyz's opinion' is certainly legitimate, but it is not the end of the process because in accepting that opinion it is an obligation to either a) explain why you accept the reasoning of that opinion or at least be able to show that reasoning to others if you don't understand it yourself or, b) accept that it may be wrong if someone else comes up with an alternative explanation, albeit that you may 'prefer' the 'expert' opinion over another.
this is pointless. The whole point of how this started is that GIT himself has admited he doesnt know all the finer details about Woodward´s theories.

its not a question of Woodward being right or not, its a point of being useless to press GiT on some points if he himself admited he is not an expert enough on the subject, that Woodward (obviously) understands more than GiT.

So the fallacy is not, itself, saying you prefer an expert opinion, it is founding an argument on the assumption that they are right and/or dismissing other arguments only because of that opinion.
however noone did that on this topic, right?

In the case of AcesH, this is not where his fallacy lay. His fallacy lay in his description of those experts to whom GIT had referred;
AcesHigh wrote:He is baseing what is he saying on what true physics experts said
This should have read 'on what some/particular physics experts said'. The discrimination between 'false physics experts' and 'true physics experts' is the fallacy here. It pre-empts AcesH discriminating between these two species of physics experts, which would be a subjective judgement.
oh gee, come on. I am not saying Woodward is a TRUE physics expert in contrast to other physicists. He is a physics experts in contrast to GIT (who is a philosopher), in contrast to me, etc.

I reserve the right to use the expression "true x-subject expert" if I feel there is a large enough difference in expertise (not only the people degrees, but also the ability to discuss the subject), like you or not. Maybe instead of saying "true physics expert" or "what some particular physics experts", I should have written "true Woodward theorie expert", since I doubt there is anyone more knowledgeable in the theory than Woodward himself, although probably there are several more people more knowledgeable in general aspects of physics, or other particular fields, than Woodward.


GIT knows a LOT about Woodward´s theories, but its obvious that to press further on the matter you will have to argue directly with Woodward

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

Post by GIThruster »

its useless to discuss anything if all appeal to authority is wrong
Part of what you don't understand, and perhaps the larger part, is that what you're quoting about inductive reasoning does not apply to deductive reasoning.

If you make an appeal to authority in a deductive syllogism, it is a fallacy. If you make an appeal to proper authority in an inductive argument, it is not a fallacy.

In any case, appeals that Jim knows his GRT are well grounded. He knows it much better than most physicists, but in general, most physicists specialize in the Standard Model, not in GRT.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Or Paul March.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Post Reply