Mach Effect progress

[AcesHigh]

just use Kickstarter. Be sincere. Say you are investigating an effect that might lead to propellantless propulsion. Or to better understanding of inertia. Or maybe to nothing. But thats science.

who knows, there might be enough dreamers who will gladly spend $10, $50, $100, $1000, and get you $500k or more.

Just kidding. I dont think Kickstarter would accept something that can result in nothing, only research. Maybe they would. And maybe you guys wouldnt accept it.

But gee, they use Kickstarter to fund the development of frick wristwatches, it would be nice to see it being used to change the world.

[kunkmiester]

There are other crowdfunding sites like fund-a-geek that are more open to research that might not pay off. It helps that the finance rules have been changed to allow for financial rewards for funding, which would be more appropriate in this particular case.

[djolds1]

just use Kickstarter. Be sincere. Say you are investigating an effect that might lead to propellantless propulsion. Or to better understanding of inertia. Or maybe to nothing. But thats science.

who knows, there might be enough dreamers who will gladly spend $10, $50, $100, $1000, and get you $500k or more.

Just kidding. I dont think Kickstarter would accept something that can result in nothing, only research. Maybe they would. And maybe you guys wouldnt accept it.

But gee, they use Kickstarter to fund the development of frick wristwatches, it would be nice to see it being used to change the world.

I think Kickstarter would accept that proposal. Be sure to provide links and cites for the M-E work to date. And the specific focus of the project would need to be tight. New dielectrics, the magnetic field approach, etc.

[williatw]

]I think Kickstarter would accept that proposal. Be sure to provide links and cites for the M-E work to date. And the specific focus of the project would need to be tight. New dielectrics, the magnetic field approach, etc.

What do you think of their rebuttal to the critique, if you have had time to look at it? Still have a tiny ray of hope there is something to EHT, though its most likely too good to be true.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?s=1b ... 85&st=3090



QUOTE (djolds1 @ Jul 10 2012, 11:39 PM)
That's brutally succinct. And convincing.

Here is their rebuttal:

http://www.hpcc-space.de/news/RebuttalProfBruhnTUD.pdf

[Diogenes]

I was reading Nembo's SPESIF paper on mach effects, and he suggests using ferromagnetic materials to produce a strong bulk acceleration:

"In an attempt to get the best of both worlds, the use of ferromagnetic materials is proposed. Using ferromagnetic materials as active materials for producing mass fluctuations has several benefits. Using a divergent magnetic field, it is possible to induce a change in the internal energy of the body and a simultaneous unidirectional strong bulk acceleration of the body itself. The main difference between accelerating a body by means of a mechanical push and accelerating it with electromagnetic fields is that in the former case a pressure wave is generated that is propagating at the sound speed in the body, while in the latter all the ferromagnetic particles of the body are accelerated simultaneously in the same direction. An effect similar to pressure waves, in a sense that it is a macroscopic mechanical effect as well, still remains: tidal forces. Because the divergent magnetic field possesses a gradient, the side of the body facing the high field region will be subjected to a stronger force than the opposite side. However, these tidal forces would contribute additively to the change of internal energy of the body, as they would manifest themselves with the same timing of the other energy storing phenomena (domains alignment,
magnetostriction)."

Very clever idea. The magnetic field would act on all the molecules simultaneously, and thereby possibly alleviate the acoustical coupling problems. Of course inductive reactance increases with frequency, so it would seemingly be harder to take advantage of the higher frequencies if it were constructed as a standard coil design.

I think ferromagnetic ultrasonic tranducers can be driven around 100khz, but I can't say i've heard of ferromagnetic transducers operating in the Mhz range.

Perhaps the ferromagnetic material can be shaped into a resonate form and driven with an efficiently coupled radio wave? That might make it possible to get the thing up into the megahertz and beyond. Might make for a much simpler design.

It could be massively paralleled and spaced at resonance nodes, (on a plane) and driven simultaneously from the same rf source.

I have a copy of one of Nembo's earlier experiments. He cites inductive reactance as a frequency limitation in his approach. However, 100KHz should be good enough as proof of concept. I think an actual propulsion device requires MHz frequency assuming that the affect scales to the power of 3 as function of frequency.

100 khz still leaves it in the weak range. A robust signal would be much preferred, but that requires higher frequencies. I'm thinking that coupling an RF wave directly to it might be a feasible way to get around the inductive reactance problem. If I recall correctly, a circulator uses ferromagnetic material which interacts with an incoming rf wave.

In any case, circulator design is a prior art, so I would start out by talking to guys that have done this sort of design work just to see if they have any worthwhile theory information that they could convey. Might save a lot of trouble reinventing the wheel.


http://www.trans-techinc.com/documents/No6511.pdf

[Diogenes]

Hi Paul, All,

So what do you think would be the logical steps needed to move from away from formal scientific experimentation and more to proof of concept engineering? Say a small radio-controlled buggy? Could we get enough effect using Y5Rs (or Y5Us) powered by an array of cellphone batteries to demonstrate tangible movement on a nice smooth surface?

I'm thinking of scaring the cat.

Ric

Air Hockey table would be the closest to being feasible given the thrusts involved.

[TDPerk]

In any case, circulator design is a prior art...Might save a lot of trouble reinventing the wheel.

Now that is a dry enough sense of humor I might appreciate it under other circumstances.

[djolds1]

]I think Kickstarter would accept that proposal. Be sure to provide links and cites for the M-E work to date. And the specific focus of the project would need to be tight. New dielectrics, the magnetic field approach, etc.

What do you think of their rebuttal to the critique, if you have had time to look at it? Still have a tiny ray of hope there is something to EHT, though its most likely too good to be true.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?s=1b ... 85&st=3090



QUOTE (djolds1 @ Jul 10 2012, 11:39 PM)
That's brutally succinct. And convincing.

Here is their rebuttal:

http://www.hpcc-space.de/news/RebuttalProfBruhnTUD.pdf

The D&H team do NOT fill me with confidence. John Reed's very sober analyses have hit them hard a few times, I have seen zilch self-generated hardware for testing in a decade of publishing - and that hardware has become MUCH easier in the last seven years, they continue to cling to their interpretation of the Tajmar results despite the fact that Tajmar himself has repudiated them, and apparent fraud in claiming association with universities they have no links to indicts their characters quite badly.

[GIThruster]

djolds1, thats right.

But the shabby results at other labs don't belong here in this thread.

No matter what people might pretend, I have no interest in commenting on failed propulsion physics. I'd much rather focus on what works.

The stuff at Fullerton is working. . .

[djolds1]

djolds1, thats right.

But the shabby results at other labs don't belong here in this thread.

No matter what people might pretend, I have no interest in commenting on failed propulsion physics. I'd much rather focus on what works.

The stuff at Fullerton is working. . .

(Shrug)

Threads wander.

Such is the nature of fallen humanity.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Mach Effect discussions, already in progress.

[CaptainBeowulf]

Quite frankly I think that the occasional comparison of Mach Effect to other concepts is useful. A bit of comparison helps to show which theory is more solid - and so far, M-E has beaten others out... accepting that this all a bit "fringe"... but M-E much less so (based in established speculation about the origin of inertia). Yes, we should have someone boot the discussion back on-topic from time to time, but a few divergent posts are not a concern.

I used to follow Heim Theory quite closely. I abandoned it as a red herring about 1.5 to 2 years ago. This small update was quite gratifying.

It's not as if there hasn't been some squabbling over what is, and isn't, shabby results in terms of M-E lab results. Fortunately, the squabbling seems to have attenuated and been replaced by rational insights into sources of experimental error/varying results.

Experiment to develop a more complete understanding of physics, and we may yet find that there is a way to engineer a good space drive based on that physics.

[djolds1]

Quite frankly I think that the occasional comparison of Mach Effect to other concepts is useful. A bit of comparison helps to show which theory is more solid - and so far, M-E has beaten others out... accepting that this all a bit "fringe"... but M-E much less so (based in established speculation about the origin of inertia). Yes, we should have someone boot the discussion back on-topic from time to time, but a few divergent posts are not a concern.

I used to follow Heim Theory quite closely. I abandoned it as a red herring about 1.5 to 2 years ago. This small update was quite gratifying.

It's not as if there hasn't been some squabbling over what is, and isn't, shabby results in terms of M-E lab results. Fortunately, the squabbling seems to have attenuated and been replaced by rational insights into sources of experimental error/varying results.

Experiment to develop a more complete understanding of physics, and we may yet find that there is a way to engineer a good space drive based on that physics.

Pharis Williams' approach seems to offer ease of testing with its inductive coupling of electromagnetic and gravitational fields, but I suspect his gravitational rotor test-stand device is inappropriate for directed effects.

[GeeGee]

Pharis Williams' approach seems to offer ease of testing with its inductive coupling of electromagnetic and gravitational fields, but I suspect his gravitational rotor test-stand device is inappropriate for directed effects.

I have to admit, I don't really know much of anything about Williams' approach to exotic propulsion. How does he plan to convert electromagnetic fields into strong gravitational fields?

[GIThruster]

Back in 2006 I was hired by an aerospace startup that shall remain unnamed, to do a survey of all the various advanced propulsion and power generation options out there, and a white paper. My finding at that time was that the only propulsion scheme I could take seriously was Woodward's M-E work. In order to come to that conclusion, I had pretty basic criteria.

I was looking for first, a solid theoretical explanation for any claimed effect. This rules out all the nonsense stuff like the Searl Generator because Searl has never had anything like a real theoretical explanation what what he's been proposing for years. Same is true with the MAC Russian version of the Searl and the even more recent American replication of it. All three of these are essentially permanent magnet motors, that will self accelerate and so cheat people into believing they can be used for power generation. But the fact is, ALL permanent magnet motors do this. As soon as you attach a generator to them, they run down and stop. Their "self acceleration" is just the result of the energy put in when assembling them.

We know permanent magnet motors violate conservation should they work, so I don't waste my time looking at them, or at any other schemes that don't have a solid, theoretical support. I should also note that because I'm not a physicist, I don't pretend to always know first hand whether a scheme makes sense. That's why I personally want to see the scheme examined in the peer review literature.

The second criteria I use to judge what I call "emergent technology" is I want to see empirical results. Observations done properly. As much as I am impressed with Paul March's MLT results from 2004, if there were no tests done under proper scientific protocols as with Jim's work, I would have passed over M-E tech long ago. This second criteria removes huge numbers of contenders from consideration as well, but if a propulsion scheme hasn't been built at all, I don't consider it "emergent". You might dicker about what to call it, but in my estimation, there is not enough to look at to make an educated judgement if nothing has been built. All of Jack Sarfatti's work falls into this category by design.

My judgement 6 years ago was that out of the dozens of propulsion schemes I looked into, only Woodward's M-E tech met the standards I have. Months after I delivered that white paper and later joined the Woodward group, I found out that Lockheed Martin had done precisely the same study and come to precisely the same conclusion. As they sent a team of physicists to do their study, I found myself in good company.

BTW, I was amongst the first to call out the EHT people for their mal-apropriation of Tajmar's test results, done only AFTER Martin had run his experiment without the superconducting ring and had the same results. That was fraud on the part of the EHT people and it is years old now. I'm surprised anyone still takes them seriously.

Then again, I'm surprised anyone still builds Searl replications. . .

[GIThruster]

Pharis Williams' approach seems to offer ease of testing with its inductive coupling of electromagnetic and gravitational fields, but I suspect his gravitational rotor test-stand device is inappropriate for directed effects.

Pharis told me that there are no direct applications of his work for propulsion, but rather for other useful things. Just what those other useful things are we'll have to wait and see. His work has full funding over at Northrup Grumman, though he would likely not call it that since he himself is not getting paid. That's what happens when you fail to file for patent.