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 »

This above is correct.

Back in 2006, Paul March and I collborated together as a result of STAIF '06, to produce a paper that was specifically an "applications" paper, for the Space Technology and Applications International Forum 2007. That is what became the Warpstar paper.

What we did was look at what we thought were reasonable numbers. . .a 500 Mhz MLT seemed reasonable and using Andrew Palfreyman's math model, seemed to say a 1N/W baseline thrust was reasonable. Though we now know Andrew's model was flawed, this kind of thrust efficiency is not an unreasonable figure.

With a 1N/W thruster you can indeed strap to a flywheel and produce enough power to drive the M-E propulsion system, so given such thrusters don't weigh fantastically more than we'd expect, they would enable the kind of "one gee solution" that the Warpstar represents.

In the original Warpstar paper, Paul chose to use a conventional power system and a proven lifting body. The following year I collaborated with another repeating presenter at STAIF on the Warpstar II project, that again was based upon the 1N/W baseline, but went on to use the idea of an M-E powered generator and thus a rangeless spacecraft, and also one that carried cargo externally like an S-64 Skycrane. The idea was to show that if we had a rangeless spacecraft that needed almost no maintenance, that used our current steel intermodal containers such as we put on ships, trains and tractor trailers; and that could essentially fly down and grapple such containers wherever they are and fly them anywhere on this planet or another, how this would effect interplanetary colonization.

Unfortunately, my collaborator bailed and then decided to work another paper at the last minute, which was turned down for inclusion into STAIF Section F for not being an applications paper.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

kunkmiester
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Post by kunkmiester »

I would bet also that a properly built stack, maybe one of the electromagnetic ones with magnetic components, could be used to generate power without a flywheel.

What would be really cool is if these things could be printed out on something like the metalicarap. You could render a broken part back to chemicals, and rebuild it completely, meaning you need almost no spare parts on board.
http://reprap.org/wiki/MetalicaRap
Evil is evil, no matter how small

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

kunkmiester wrote:An MLT generator would need to generate a newton of thrust for less than a watt of input. Referring to the transistor comparison, the input power isn't a limit, the efficiency is.

To put it simply, this is a grav-inertial pump, and that's how thrust is produced. Since the pump itself doesn't make gravity or inertia, it doesn't matter how much of it is spit out, only how much power it takes to do so.

This seems to me to be a good description for what we expect the effect to behave like. It is analogous in this regard to Carnot's engine which is axiomatically limited in efficiency.

The efficiency of the device is hard coded by the governing physics, and it's efficiency will very likely limit it's capabilities in such a manner as to prevent any "free energy."

Apart from that, I can't see how the torque load of the rotating shaft for the arm can possibly generate more energy than it takes to drive the device, and I am still at a lost as to why anyone would postulate such a possibility.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Carl Sagan had his doubts about UFOs. He takes the most popular claims apart pretty well in one of the episodes of his Cosmos series. I highly recommend it. Note that Carl Sagan was a strong supporter of the search for extraterrestrial life. He just did not believe in UFO sightings being actual aliens.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Diogenes wrote:. . .I can't see how the torque load of the rotating shaft for the arm can possibly generate more energy than it takes to drive the device, and I am still at a lost as to why anyone would postulate such a possibility.
Because the energy into the device is not primarily electrical. The device is not a transducer that converts electrical energy into mechanical. It is a transistor that electrically controls the flow of gravinertial energy and guides it to do work.

Think of is as a windmill, where the electrical input drives the gears that point the mill into the wind, but it is the wind that drives the mill. The amount of power out of the device therefore has no real relation to the electrical power in. The "thrust efficiency" of force generated over electric power input, is just a figure of merit that allows one to do basic thumbnail calculations for designing spacecraft and understanding what certain efficiencies deliver by way of utility. 1N/W is more than enough to build self-powering generators that can then power the main M-E propulsion system of a spacecraft.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

kunkmiester
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Post by kunkmiester »

Lets look at flying for an example. Basic tenant of flight is thrust. In general, we push something backwards to push the plane forward.

You're saying any engine, whether propeller or jet, can't use the ambient air as something to push. Only rockets work, which carry all their stuff on board. This is stupid, since we've been pushing air around with engines for over a hundred years.

A MLT(mutton lettuce and tomato anyone? :P ) isn't a rocket that has to have all it's own energy and propellant to work, it's a jet or propeller that pushes a medium(gravity/inertia/whatever it's properly called) to produce thrust.

Let's go to the other anology used, sailing. A ship can tow a load. If the load is a generator, well, you're making electricity. If you can harness the wind well enough, you can generate net power. For an MLT, if you're making more than 1 newton of thrust with 1 watt of power, then you can. Given the mechanical and other inefficiencies of the system, this is where the weight/size of the ship is small enough to pull the load, and have enough of the power actually going into the load to do stuff, rather than just running the sailboat.

Whether you can make the sailboat that light is another story.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

GIThruster wrote:
Diogenes wrote:. . .I can't see how the torque load of the rotating shaft for the arm can possibly generate more energy than it takes to drive the device, and I am still at a lost as to why anyone would postulate such a possibility.
Because the energy into the device is not primarily electrical. The device is not a transducer that converts electrical energy into mechanical. It is a transistor that electrically controls the flow of gravinertial energy and guides it to do work.

Think of is as a windmill, where the electrical input drives the gears that point the mill into the wind, but it is the wind that drives the mill. The amount of power out of the device therefore has no real relation to the electrical power in. The "thrust efficiency" of force generated over electric power input, is just a figure of merit that allows one to do basic thumbnail calculations for designing spacecraft and understanding what certain efficiencies deliver by way of utility. 1N/W is more than enough to build self-powering generators that can then power the main M-E propulsion system of a spacecraft.
Ron:

The specific thrust figure of 1.0 N/W is still our ultimate efficiency performance goal, but keep in mind that the best M-E efficiency experimentally observed to date by Woodward in his latest PZT stack test article that generated 20uN with 1.0 Watt of dissipated input power running at 38kHz was 0.00002 N/W, which is a very long way from the 1.0 N/W needed to make the WarpStar-1 concept vehicle flyable. And even if we can trust my MLT-2004 and Jim's and my Mach-2MHz test article's ~0.0004 N/W specific thrust numbers, we still have at least another three orders of magnitude of efficiency performance gain to make it to where we need to be able to go ahead with actually buidling WarpStar-1. These experimetnal efficiency numbers are still within range of standard local input power with no need to point to harvesting G/I power of any note. However if we can experimentally increase the specific thrust by another two orders of magnitude to ~0.04 N/W, we can confidently say that we have to be harvesting G/I energy to make up the difference between the observed jet thrust power and local dissipated input power.

BTW, the WarpStar-1's proposed 45kN thrusters were run at 50.0 MHz, not 500.0 MHz. And if Woodward's a^2 bulk acceleration derivation is correct, we might get away with running these engines at just ~25 MHz if we use PZT crystals with a d33 not much greater than 300 pico-meter/Volt (pm/V).

Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

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

Post by GIThruster »

Paul,

Roger that! I think Heidi is checking on the PMN-15 mix at TRS. Inside its operational temperature bandwidth it has a k more than 25X Jim's PZT, and IIRC, the thrust of the UFG goes cubic with the k of the ceramic. That would be 4 orders magnitude increase with no change in frequency. PMN also has a higher electromechanical linking coefficient so this will create higher accelerations. It can;t be depolarized by overheating. And of course Jim could about double his frequency with the existing power system.

I think there's a pretty good chance we'll see some spectacular thrusts if they continue along these lines.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

I have no definite opinion on the matter of UFOs not having studied the subject deeply.

But I have experienced ball lightning first hand (within a few feet) so I don't need convincing on that one. However, without instruments and photos....

Now could ball lightning be the cause of anomalous radar reflections accompanied by visual effects?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Post by GIThruster »

There are no doubt incidents where ball lightning as well as earth Lights are mistaken for craft of some sort. There are however dozens upon dozens of cases that cannot be explained by conventional means. . Too many to list. Here's an example:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case665.htm

Interesting that the RF signature is what one would expect from a gaseous core M-E thruster.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

GIThruster wrote:There are no doubt incidents where ball lightning as well as earth Lights are mistaken for craft of some sort. There are however dozens upon dozens of cases that cannot be explained by conventional means. . Too many to list. Here's an example:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case665.htm

Interesting that the RF signature is what one would expect from a gaseous core M-E thruster.
The link takes me to a blank page. I could speculate.... ;-)

The main page:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/

gives no access to the sub pages.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Both the link I left and the copy are working for me.

It's one of the shorter accounts of the famous RB-47 incident in 1957. In lengthier accounts there's an explanation of the exact kinds of broadcast coming from the craft. Since it was an ECM ship, it was loaded with 3 different kinds of listening devices all of which lit up like Christmas trees.

Here's a longer version:

http://www.ufocasebook.com/rb47.html
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

GIThruster wrote:Both the link I left and the copy are working for me.

It's one of the shorter accounts of the famous RB-47 incident in 1957. In lengthier accounts there's an explanation of the exact kinds of broadcast coming from the craft. Since it was an ECM ship, it was loaded with 3 different kinds of listening devices all of which lit up like Christmas trees.

Here's a longer version:

http://www.ufocasebook.com/rb47.html
And here are a few other reports on the 1957 RB-47 UFO Incidence:

http://uto.sigsno.org/index.php/1998_Pu ... 7_Analysis

http://www.nicap.org/reports/RB47_Sparks_Ency.pdf

Folks, this set of 1957 RB-47 UFO reports including the original paper published by the AIAA says volumes about one of the things we are dealing with in the UFO business, i.e., one of their propulsion systems. It's one of the things that keep me trying to understand and replicate the propulsion system demonstrated by this encounter. To do that though, we first have to understand the origins of inertia and gravity by looking at their best theoretical underpinnings found in General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology. And yes, only when we have melded these three disciplines into a unified whole will we fully understand how these gravity & inertia drives really work. Until then we work with and are guided by the best theories on this topic we have now, and IMO they come from Jim Woodward's Mach-Effect Theory and Sonny White's Quantum Vacuum Conjecture.

Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

kunkmiester
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Post by kunkmiester »

Paul, have you seen the work by Frank Znidarsic? Aside from his work's other ramifications, I'm curious as to how it applies to ML theory.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

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

Post by GIThruster »

I looked at some of Znidarsic's work some years ago and he struck me as a crackpot. His recounting of the intellectual history of science is completely wrong. He's not an historian nor a philosopher and talking about stuff he knows nothing about. His education is that of an engineer and I'm sorry to have to say this in this crowd, but this does NOT qualify him as a scientist. Here in the states, no training in scientific method is required to get a BS in engineering except in select schools. Most American engineers are NOT scientists. Finally, the subject matter he postulates on is all crackpot. From uninformed positions on cold fusion, to statements about a theory he says can yield anti-gravity propulsion. . .I think you have here a guy who is a legend in his own mind and that's about it. I can tell you, none of that stuff is remotely connected with M-E theory.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Post Reply