Mach Effect progress

[ladajo]

I believe you already have the 2004 paper Flux Caps & Origin of inertia_04-20-2004.pdf given to you by Paul March.

How about M-E Rotary_2010_Woodward ED.pdf?

or

Woodward's NEW M-E PZT-Stack in ARC-Lite RESULTS 05-31-2011A.pdf?

You can also check out;
http://www.scientificexploration.org/ta ... oblem.html

if you have not already.

[madsci]

I believe you already have the 2004 paper Flux Caps & Origin of inertia_04-20-2004.pdf given to you by Paul March.

How about M-E Rotary_2010_Woodward ED.pdf?

or

Woodward's NEW M-E PZT-Stack in ARC-Lite RESULTS 05-31-2011A.pdf?

You can also check out;
http://www.scientificexploration.org/ta ... oblem.html

if you have not already.

Thanks for the name of the files, Google helped me found them and also the video link.
Your help is appreciated.

It will take me a while to look through them and understand why the energy conservation holds in the presence of the Woodward effect.
Any pointers to where this appears in the papers are welcome.

[madsci]

As a side comment, it's surprisingly difficult to keep up with Woodard and co.'s research: no central repository of documents, only posted on forums, etc..
That's in marked contrast with other researchers who post everything they write on arxiv and other sites, even before their papers/reports are finalized (i.e. draft form).
Is there a reason for this difficulty ?

[DeltaV]

Through 2005:
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/Woodward-3.html

[madsci]

Through 2005:
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/Woodward-3.html

I found that, but it doesn't have links to the (old) papers and it doesn't even list the new ones.
Quite unusual for an academic researcher as I said above.

[GIThruster]

Its not unusual at all. Many of the papers cannot be reproduced without paying for them because the American Institute for Physics negotiated with STAIF and SPESIF that they would publish the papers and then they would not be out for free distribution. This is just the consequence these days of major science journals requiring to be paid for what is almost entirely free, in order to have access to the prestige behind the name.

C'est dommage.

The conservation and more specifically, the entropy issues have been dealt with by Woodward over the years, but I think your best opportunity to see them dealt with in detail will be in his upcoming book, which will be published by Springer one hopes by next Fall. In the meantime, I can tell you there is no apparent violation since the theory posits transport of energy or better, momentum/energy from both the past and future, based upon Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler-Fe ... ber_theory

The precise mathematic modeling of this part of the theory is not complete, but the conceptual portion is and there are no outstanding issues. This is after all, the very first sort of issue that gets checked when one presents theory to peer review, which Woodward did more than 15 years ago.

About Tom's notion that it is the quantitative portion of the M-E work that he found most valuable because it provides for falsifiability, that's an excellent point. I have wondered over the years how to tie down the loose variables so quantitative predictions could be had and unfortunately, I just don't see a way to do this. There is of course one exception--the "parametric study" or what you are doing when you collect "scaling data".

Scaling data is of extreme importance in this work because it is the only way to tie down most "loose variables". When you do a scaling experiment, what you are essentially saying is, "given all these variables stay the same, then changing this one, ought to have this effect". So for instance, if we can get all the variables to remain unchanged while we change voltage (no easy task) it doesn't really matter how much sinter is in the caps--that variable will not change. If we know thrust ought to scale with a certain power to V, in a certain design, then we can in a sense provide falsifiability without a quantitative model nor even tying down all the variables.

This is why scaling work is such a high priority in Jim's work. He may not be able to make general quantitative predictions, but given certain thrust, he can make thrust predictions altering things like voltage, rotation, etc.

PS--Sorry the link above doesn't work, but the trouble seems to be at wiki. If you cut and paste it, the link works.

[quixote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler-Fe ... ber_theory

[MSimon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler-Fe ... ber_theory

Thanks for that. I used it to fix the original.

[madsci]

He may not be able to make general quantitative predictions, but given certain thrust, he can make thrust predictions altering things like voltage, rotation, etc.

GTIThruster, thanks for the reply.

I am not sure why you say that he is not able to make quantitative predictions.
On the contrary, one of the strong points of Woodward's theory is that he doesn't have any free parameters in its equations.
For example you can compute the mass variation of a charging capacitor directly using only known constants like the speed of light:

dm(t) = 1/(4πρoG*c^2)*C*V0^2*ω^2*Cos(2ωt).

This formula is derived in "Tests of Mach’s Principle With A Mechanical Oscillator " directly from Woodward's formulas.

[madsci]

The precise mathematic modeling of this part of the theory is not complete, but the conceptual portion is and there are no outstanding issues. This is after all, the very first sort of issue that gets checked when one presents theory to peer review, which Woodward did more than 15 years ago.

I understand that the energy conservation / entropy part of the theory is not complete yet.
Still, according to you, the reviewers already had some formulas or model to review 15 years ago.
I looked in a few of Woodward's papers including "Flux Capacitors and the Origin of Inertia" and I couldn't find any treatment of the energy conservation.

Could you point me to the paper and equations that convinced the reviewers 15 years ago that there is no problem with the energy conservation ?
It would be much appreciated.

[GIThruster]

He may not be able to make general quantitative predictions, but given certain thrust, he can make thrust predictions altering things like voltage, rotation, etc.

GTIThruster, thanks for the reply.

I am not sure why you say that he is not able to make quantitative predictions.
On the contrary, one of the strong points of Woodward's theory is that he doesn't have any free parameters in its equations.
For example you can compute the mass variation of a charging capacitor directly using only known constants like the speed of light:

dm(t) = 1/(4πρoG*c^2)*C*V0^2*ω^2*Cos(2ωt).

This formula is derived in "Tests of Mach’s Principle With A Mechanical Oscillator " directly from Woodward's formulas.

The problem with quantitative prediction is that in order to make them, you have to have physical answers about materials and such that we just don't have, and can't even nail down to an order magnitude. Some of the loose variables are not this way. We could make an educated guess about the percent sinter in a cap or PZT disc. That would give us loose numbers that might be off by a factor or so, but not an entire order of magnitude.

OTOH, when we make guesses about the exact electrostrictive + piezomechanical motion of a perovskite crystal like PZT or BaTiO3, especially when sintered, we start to run into severe troubles. We don't know the percent polarization of the group of crystals, though we'd expect it to be fairly high and we'd expect it to diminish with time and use. We don't know the precise permittivity on each crystal. We know that the cell walls between nanocrystals lowers permittivity, and this is why nano-crystal sintered in extremely thin sheets has such high k. No one doing the work has ever used something like this however.

Likewise, we can't calculate specific accelerations from the accelerometer data for reasons I know Jim would disagree with me about, but to be plain here. In the current embodiment, accelerometers are embedded within the stack and are preloaded with it. Since, IMHO, the steel bolts preloading the stack are 200X too stiff to allow optimal motion of the stack, the expanding PZT will generally compress the unpowered portions of the stack--the accelerometers--before stretching the steel. The PZT accelerometers therefore add to the displacement of the stack by allowing it to expand more easily than does the steel preload, but the accelerometers don't then give a calibrated signal. So even though they can show when Jim gets good motion as compared to bad (useful for finding resonance) they don't really furnish raw numbers that can be used to do quantitative predictions.

That's just one of the many complexities one has to face with "loose variables." There are many others.

Personally, I think there are ways to tie down almost all the variables. One could for exxample, use high frequency laser interferometry to monitor the stack end-plate. You would still need to guess about the motion of the ceramic itself, but you'd be inside a factor. That would however take most of jim's work season to put together, despite not costing so much. Just not worth the trouble at this time.

Most fixes or variable tie-downs are very expensive and even in a mass production facility would prove relatively unuseful. We don't for example, make such predictions about the efficiency of an internal combustion engine. We make improvements on the engine and then look at the percent efficiency increase. The exception of course is computerized finite-element modeling. I've been told someone on Jim's team is attempting this, but I've never been told whom. I think it may be one of the profs at CSU Fullerton. If you want more detail in the difficulties involved in making such quantitative predictions, I can recommend the next to last chapter in this excellent book:

http://www.amazon.com/Piezoelectricity- ... 547&sr=8-6

entitled "Finite-Element Modeling of Piezoelectric Actuators: Linear and Non-Linear Analysis.

On which papers of Jim's to recommend for conservation issues, I'm afraid I have to leave that to someone who has been reading the older papers recently. I haven't read anything other than the new stuff in the last 4 years. Point is though, since the theory requires momentum be transferred instantaneously across the universe, the entire Universe must be considered as part of a closed system in order to do any conservation calculation. The exact calculation is not then so important as showing the mechanism required is at all possible. If you don't grant the possibility of an absorber like transfer, the theory certainly would violate conservation. If you do grant it, there's no urgent reason to do any actual conservation cals that I can see.

[kurt9]

The problem with quantitative prediction is that in order to make them, you have to have physical answers about materials and such that we just don't have, and can't even nail down to an order magnitude. Some of the loose variables are not this way. We could make an educated guess about the percent sinter in a cap or PZT disc. That would give us loose numbers that might be off by a factor or so, but not an entire order of magnitude.

OTOH, when we make guesses about the exact electrostrictive + piezomechanical motion of a perovskite crystal like PZT or BaTiO3, especially when sintered, we start to run into severe troubles. We don't know the percent polarization of the group of crystals, though we'd expect it to be fairly high and we'd expect it to diminish with time and use. We don't know the precise permittivity on each crystal. We know that the cell walls between nanocrystals lowers permittivity, and this is why nano-crystal sintered in extremely thin sheets has such high k. No one doing the work has ever used something like this however.

Likewise, we can't calculate specific accelerations from the accelerometer data for reasons I know Jim would disagree with me about, but to be plain here. In the current embodiment, accelerometers are embedded within the stack and are preloaded with it. Since, IMHO, the steel bolts preloading the stack are 200X too stiff to allow optimal motion of the stack, the expanding PZT will generally compress the unpowered portions of the stack--the accelerometers--before stretching the steel. The PZT accelerometers therefore add to the displacement of the stack by allowing it to expand more easily than does the steel preload, but the accelerometers don't then give a calibrated signal. So even though they can show when Jim gets good motion as compared to bad (useful for finding resonance) they don't really furnish raw numbers that can be used to do quantitative predictions.

That's just one of the many complexities one has to face with "loose variables." There are many others.

Personally, I think there are ways to tie down almost all the variables. One could for exxample, use high frequency laser interferometry to monitor the stack end-plate. You would still need to guess about the motion of the ceramic itself, but you'd be inside a factor. That would however take most of jim's work season to put together, despite not costing so much. Just not worth the trouble at this time.

Most fixes or variable tie-downs are very expensive and even in a mass production facility would prove relatively unuseful. We don't for example, make such predictions about the efficiency of an internal combustion engine. We make improvements on the engine and then look at the percent efficiency increase. The exception of course is computerized finite-element modeling. I've been told someone on Jim's team is attempting this, but I've never been told whom. I think it may be one of the profs at CSU Fullerton. If you want more detail in the difficulties involved in making such quantitative predictions, I can recommend the next to last chapter in this excellent book:

http://www.amazon.com/Piezoelectricity- ... 547&sr=8-6

entitled "Finite-Element Modeling of Piezoelectric Actuators: Linear and Non-Linear Analysis.

On which papers of Jim's to recommend for conservation issues, I'm afraid I have to leave that to someone who has been reading the older papers recently. I haven't read anything other than the new stuff in the last 4 years. Point is though, since the theory requires momentum be transferred instantaneously across the universe, the entire Universe must be considered as part of a closed system in order to do any conservation calculation. The exact calculation is not then so important as showing the mechanism required is at all possible. If you don't grant the possibility of an absorber like transfer, the theory certainly would violate conservation. If you do grant it, there's no urgent reason to do any actual conservation cals that I can see.

Jim Woodward recently said that a lot of serious engineering will be needed to make useful devices. The above are some of the materials and configuration challenges to be met. One engineering task will be the development of the colossal dielectric constant materials specifically for the Woodward-Mach applications. Since Woodward and March are still trying to demonstrate the effect on a shoe-string budget, they are having to use off-the-shelf dielectrics used for conventional capacitor applications. These materials are certainly not optimized for W-M effect.

[DeltaV]

GI, would there be any value in fabricating arrays of Mach-Woodward devices at the nano scale?

MHz frequencies are not all that practical for macro scale mechanical devices, but nano scale would easily accomodate such frequencies. I'm thinking of something similar to the MEMS devices used as sensors for strapdown inertial navigation, AHRSs, etc., but large area arrays of actuated devices rather than the few elements typically used for sensing.

Chip mills are getting very good at consistently producing nano-arrays. The thrust from one array element would be miniscule, but for millions of active elements...

[madsci]

The problem with quantitative prediction is that in order to make them, you have to have physical answers about materials and such that we just don't have, and can't even nail down to an order magnitude. Some of the loose variables are not this way. We could make an educated guess about the percent sinter in a cap or PZT disc. That would give us loose numbers that might be off by a factor or so, but not an entire order of magnitude.

...

OTOH, when we make guesses about the exact electrostrictive + piezomechanical motion of a perovskite crystal like PZT or BaTiO3, especially when sintered, we start to run into severe troubles.

Ok, I agree with all there, but these are specific to the particular setup Woodward is using in his experiments.

When I said he is able to make quantitative predictions, I was talking about his theory which says that variations of the energy density of a body induce variations of the body's mass density.

The exact calculation is not then so important as showing the mechanism required is at all possible. If you don't grant the possibility of an absorber like transfer, the theory certainly would violate conservation. If you do grant it, there's no urgent reason to do any actual conservation cals that I can see.

The absorber theory needs some specific conditions is order to be valid, as far as I understand. These conditions are met in the case of the electromagnetic fields.
Are they also met by the gravito-electromagnetic fields Woodward is using for his derivations ?
For me this is not at all clear.
Maybe there is an intuitive argument which would point to the answer being yes, but I cannot see it.

Anyway, if someone has more info about the important issue of energy conservation, please post it here.

[GIThruster]

GI, would there be any value in fabricating arrays of Mach-Woodward devices at the nano scale?

I've been trying for ages to get someone to run a monolithic actuator like these, as a thruster. Trouble is the phasing is difficult to avoid getting mutually reversed thrusts; but it is not impossible.

http://www.piceramic.de/site/stack.html

Its been some time since I crunched these numbers, but IIRC, the ceramic is about 10 microns/layer and the electrodes less than 2 microns. The co-fired stacks are supposed to be able to operate without preload and since a thruster would work as a long series of half wave resonators, the extensions would contribute almost no net length change in the stack so it's even more likely this will work at resonance. These stacks draw very low power when operated at resonance, probably less than 100V and 20W for a large stack like the one pictured. Find something small and light enough to fit on a Mettler and you have a relatively cheap and easy to do experiment with almost no assembly required.

Just needs the manpower.

Since with the UFG thrust scales quadratically with frequency, and the resonance of these items is an inverse function of thickness, you really do want to find preassembled, very thin layer stacks. These are made by several different companies, but PiCeramics uses the co-fired ceramic encapsulation method that protects from moisture much, much better than their competition, so they are certainly my first choice. If you have real thrust, you want to set it up and let it run over very long periods of time to start to study the die-off issue.

IIRC, stacks with 10 micron thick layers ought to resonate at several Mhz, so this stuff can be driven with cheap ham amps and Johnson Matchbox type tuners. this is the odd exception where the preassembled thruster would cost more than the power equipment. Probably the main technical issue is generating the 1+2w wave in the Mhz range. Since this hasn't been done before it's not super simple, but I doubt it's all that hard either. I'm sure as an old Ham hand, Andrew Palfreyman could be counted on for some expertise here.

Any takers, please let me know. My Mettler H20 is sitting in a box, waiting for a new friend.

As to nano-scale, yes. If this design works at all, then using chemical vapor deposition to form nano-scale layers operating at Ghz frequencies is the obvious step to commercialization. The design does however suffer the issue that the 1w antinode is at the 2w node, so much of the ceramic is not producing optimum thrust. This is true of all UFG designs.