## Mach Effect progress

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
ladajo wrote:So how long would it take to reach .1C for 500Kg @ 1.5uN push?
(@ chrismb post?)

There would appear to be no physical limit to what force can be applied to an object if some form of force-connection can be made between an object and the rest of the universe. But the energy required to generate that force would be variable, dependent on the differential velocity between the two.

The above can be obtained easily by Newton's laws, but the energy required would depend on the relative velocities.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast
It was more in jest, and not at anyone in particular. Although I do admit I was fishing to see what some might say/do about the energy requirement part.
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)

quixote
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:44 pm
ladajo wrote:So how long would it take to reach .1C for 500Kg @ 1.5uN push?

Code: Select all

F = m * a
v = v0 + a * t

m = 500 kg
F = 1.5 * 10^-6 Newtons
v0 = 0 if we start at rest
v = 0.1 * c
t = (v - v0) * m / F
Plug it into google calculator.

Code: Select all

((0.1 * c - 0 m/s ) * 500 kg) / (1.5 * 10^-6 newtons) = 316,668,421 years
That seems high. Did I do that right?

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
chrismb wrote:
chrismb wrote:The very essential notion of this, irrespective of any mathematical arguments that might arise in the paper, appears to be that the centre of mass of a closed system can be altered back and forth by the conversion of mass into energy. . .
GIThruster wrote:Not even close. M-E theory has no resemblance to this charge. Nowhere is there any mass-energy conversion. You're making these obviously and stupidly wrong statements about M-E theory because you don't understand it in the least. Again, pathetic.
James F. Woodward wrote:The Mach Effect Thruster (MET) is a device which utilizes fluctuations in the rest masses of accelerating objects (capacitor stacks,in which internal energy changes take place)
What chrismb alluded to may or may have not been what Woodward intended exactly, but it does not appear to have been an 'obviously and stupidly wrong statement'.

What does this internal energy change into, if not into a mass fluctuation?
chris, the changes in internal energy are due to charging/discharging and shape change. Internal energy is altered with all shape change.

There is no mass/energy conversion in the M-E process. The better way to look at it is the image where matter gains its mass from the gravinertial field that binds the universe together gravitationally. In Mach's Principle, gravity causes inertia, and this is a field effect.

In Woodward's theory, the mass of an object and thus its inertia, can temporarily be fluctuated during a Mach-Effect. That fluctuation occurs at the second harmoinic of the influence causing the effect. To cause the effect you need simultaneously, both an acceleration in relation to the rest of the universe and a change in internal energy. So piezoactive, magnetostrictive and electrostrictve materials are all top choices for generating Mach Effects.

Note that the effect itself is merely a temporary fluctuation in mass or inertia of the object. In order to generate useful thrust, that fluctuation needs to be syncronized with oscilation--we "push heavy, pull light". This is what creates thrust.

If it helps, you can play loosely with the analogy of the GI field, being made up of "gravinertial flux" in a way similar to how a magnetic field and its flux are related. Then you can go on to talk about GI flux flowing into matter to create mass (or inertia) and how that flux flows in and out of any particular M-E active mass you are using in an M-E device. I'm not aware of any places where this analogy breaks down and it may actually be a decent accounting for what's happening. I think though before we make any serious commitments to this sort of nomenclature, we'd want several physicists handeling it to see how it holds up. For now best to treat it as an analogy or word picture and look to see where it doesn't hold up. All analogies break down somewhere. For us to state this is more than an analogy, we'd want to have clear reason to treat it so and I'm not familiar with one.

In addition to pushing heavy and pulling light to generate thrust, one can note that the negative going mass fluctuation is always a little more than the positive going fluctuation. As dm->m this grows larger and at the wormhole condition where dm=m and you temporarily have no mass, the net negative component becomes noticeable. At very high fluctuations, the wormhole term that generates larger negative mass dominates, so time averaged you have exotic matter with negative mass and negative inertia. This is what we want to see used for building wormholes and warp drives.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

GeeGee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm
Hey guys, FYI, the wiki page on the Woodward effect has been updated...though I'm not sure if it's for worse or better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am
Wikipedia is full of it. I'd fix their page, but I don't have the Computer Science PhD necessary to make edits that are acceptable to their High Priesthood of Information.

"So far there has been no announcement confirming the existence of this effect."

I'd call this an announcement:
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships- ... 1461456223

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Yeah, plus Woodward has been presenting papers at STAIF and SPESIF every year for more than a decade and all of these make thrust claims. Worse in the Wiki piece is this:

"A Woodward Device, were it to work as the theory predicts, would consume a constant and arbitrarily small amount of power while delivering constant thrust, independent of the velocity of the device relative to its original inertial frame."

which is just completely wrong. I would not be surprised if the changes were made by Andrew to support his particular claim which has always been at the heart of his failed argument. No matter how many times he has had this explained, he just does not listen.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

quixote
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:44 pm
Here is the edit, made by 69.181.36.250. That's a California-based Comcast address. Where's Andrew live?

GeeGee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm
Heidi Fearn's ASPW presentation is up on Dr. Woodward's personal website

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/ASPW2012.pdf

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Andrew is in Northern CA, the Bay Area I think.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm
GIThruster wrote:Andrew is in Northern CA, the Bay Area I think.
That would technically fit into the comcast area as they have contracts throughout the bay area.

quixote
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:44 pm
According to several of the geo-ip databases I use at work, that ip belongs to Comcast, and is typically associated with San Jose. Far from conclusive, but suggestive certainly.

painlord2k
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

### Re: Mach Effect progress

In this thread on NBF I tried to reply to some, IMO, silly arguments against the concept of a Mach Effect Thruster and I would like to have some comments about them (if they could be right or not):
Feel free to move it to a different thread if you think it inappropriate for this.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/experi ... .html#more
"For a thought experiment, think about what happens to this magic spaceship that has its drive running for a year accelerating at, oh, 1 meter per second per second, assuming its 1000 kg, and tell me where the energy comes from."
Assuming it is (no its!!!) 1.000 kg at t=0 and a F=1000 N (your initial 1m/s2 acceleration need 1k N and the drive give a constant force, not a constant acceleration) after a year the acceleration will have raised the speed near c and the mass near infinity and the ship will be near flat.

In your math do you computed the changing mass of the magic ship?
The changing dimension in the same direction of the vector of the thrust?
The slowing down of the time inside the ship?

Faster the ship go, flatter it become, the mass inside the ship will have a smaller oscillation.
Faster the ship, slower the time inside the ship, slower the oscillation.
Faster the ship, more the mass of the ship.

Does these effects will reduce the effectiveness of the drive with every increase of the speed? I think so.
Inside the ship the observer will see the drive working as usual, but from outside an observer will see the oscillator becoming slower and slower, the charging and discharging will appear slower and slower and the mass of the ship greater and greater.

And in a reply to GoatGuy writing about using a rotating engine to extract energy from a Mach Thruster:

Did you think about the possibility your rotating engine could not work using Woodward effect?

What happen to the oscillating mass when you attach the drive to a wheel?
What happen to the vectors of the forces applied?
At rest the vectors will stay on the same line, in opposite directions (and angle of π )

As the wheel start to spin, the vectors will reduce their angle to each other.

So the tangential component of the force developed by the drive will go down as the wheel spin faster and will become zero at some point..Then if you force the wheel to spin faster, it will act as a brake.

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

### Re: Mach Effect progress

That seems to me a long winded reply. The thrust efficiency of any thruster is a figure of merit that exists for all thrusters. For a chemical thruster, it is the thrust over the energy from the reaction products burned over time. It is for stationary thrust only. Taking this figure of merit and pretending it is invarient when it is not, will always yield this absurd math error. It does not matter what kind of thruster one has.

Also, because v is relative, any thruster can be started at a v just 1 second before it goes overunity in said calculation. This means that all thrusters would go overunity. It does not matter that it does or does not have propellant, how much propellant, etc.

Again, the mistake here is trying to do relativistic calculations the wrong way. You have a constant that is not invarient. The thrust efficiency is for a stationary thruster ONLY. Once the thruster starts to accelerate, that constant varies because it is not invarient. If instead of allowing it to vary as it would with a proper transformation, you hold it as invarient, you get these absurd conservation violations. This is becasue you did the math wrong.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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

### Re: Mach Effect progress

GIThruster wrote:That seems to me a long winded reply. The thrust efficiency of any thruster is a figure of merit that exists for all thrusters. For a chemical thruster, it is the thrust over the energy from the reaction products burned over time. It is for stationary thrust only. Taking this figure of merit and pretending it is invarient when it is not, will always yield this absurd math error. It does not matter what kind of thruster one has.

Also, because v is relative, any thruster can be started at a v just 1 second before it goes overunity in said calculation. This means that all thrusters would go overunity. It does not matter that it does or does not have propellant, how much propellant, etc.

Again, the mistake here is trying to do relativistic calculations the wrong way. You have a constant that is not invarient. The thrust efficiency is for a stationary thruster ONLY. Once the thruster starts to accelerate, that constant varies because it is not invarient. If instead of allowing it to vary as it would with a proper transformation, you hold it as invarient, you get these absurd conservation violations. This is becasue you did the math wrong.
They are not doing the math wrong. They are doing it incompletely.

Kinetic energy of a single body is not a real energy. Kinetic energy is inherent in a velocity difference. Think about it (remembering that energy is the capacity to do work).

In order to get conservation of energy to work with an accelerating thruster, all you have to do is account for the energy transferred to or from the exhaust. This is trivial for a rocket engine (though with external feed, such as with the flywheel example, you have to take into account the energy required for the propellant to catch up with the rocket engine before use), but for an M-E thruster you need to define the "exhaust" rather precisely to get the right answer.

I'm not convinced chrismb has done this, but his scenario is at least internally consistent and breaks no conservation laws (at least, if it's the scenario I think it is based on skimming his pompously-named "final word" post). Given the small scale of the experimental results to date, and my lack of precise knowledge of the power system parameter traces during experiments, it could even be right. I've ordered the book, and will take a look at the details to see if I can refine my understanding.

...

Of course the thrust/power ratio of a rocket engine is invariant with velocity. That's how the Oberth effect works. If this were not true, a rocket would violate Galilean invariance long before it got anywhere near fast enough to worry about Lorentz covariance.

The only way your argument makes sense is if you are including total energy transferred to the rocket in your ground reference frame in the "power" calculation. This is frankly a silly way to do it because that "power" is not seen in the rocket's frame of reference, and only falls out when you do the energy accounting correctly for a 'stationary' reference frame as I describe above. The actual power exerted by the engine is the net gain in kinetic energy over time of the rocket+exhaust combination, which is not the same as the gain in kinetic "energy" over time of the rocket alone and can easily be less. It is also frame-independent.

...

If you disagree with my assertions regarding energy accounting and thrust/power in a rocket, be aware that you are disagreeing with an expert. I'm not a physicist, but I have two degrees in mechanical engineering and am finishing up one in aerospace, so Newtonian mechanics is as natural as breathing to me. And while I have only a modest working understanding of relativity, I do understand what sort of problems you need it for; this specific subproblem is not in that category.
painlord2k wrote:In your math do you computed the changing mass of the magic ship?
The changing dimension in the same direction of the vector of the thrust?
The slowing down of the time inside the ship?
None of those matter. Relativistic effects are mathematically unrelated to the over-unity calculation and therefore cannot be used to counter it. There's plenty of headroom for a thruster of reasonable efficiency to go locally over-unity without going relativistic. The argument falls down, not on relativistic grounds, but on energy accounting grounds - the extra energy comes from the rest of the observable universe.

And, of course, there's the question of whether the thrust/power ratio of the thruster remains constant in all inertial frames. From the nature of the case I expect it should, but it may not.
Did you think about the possibility your rotating engine could not work using Woodward effect?
...
So the tangential component of the force developed by the drive will go down as the wheel spin faster and will become zero at some point..Then if you force the wheel to spin faster, it will act as a brake.
Again, the mathematics of this is unrelated; your description does not appear to be accurate, but even if it were the problem is unconstrained; you can always specify a wheel big enough that the centripetal acceleration is much smaller than the accelerations in the M-E device (actually, for any reasonable thrust efficiency it's probably difficult not to).

Also again, if the thrust/power ratio of the thruster depends on its velocity relative to a velocity-invariant collection of distant reaction mass, as suggested by chrismb, these cases basically work just like the engines we're familiar with - cars, rockets, etc. - and cannot result in even an entropy-condition violation (conservation of energy is safe regardless).