Mach Effect progress

[paulmarch]

And I assume Jim's still using his old style caps? Ric

Ric:

Define what you mean by "old style caps". Woodward's current "N" series PZT-Stacks are made from 1.0 mm thick Steiner & Martin SM111 PZT discs.

http://www.steminc.com/

Best,

[Ric Capucho]

Hi Paul,

Sorry, I wasn't very clear, was I?

I remember you posting a while back that there would likely be a lot more to come once Jim got round to switching to a more promising type of cap. Do I misremember? Has Jim already switched? 150 uN is an order of magnitude above the 10-20 uN we were hearing about just a couple of months back - yes, I know it's transient, but still. How did he get there? The caps change, or simply by turning up the juice?

Kind Regards,
Ric

[cuddihy]

Hi Paul,

Sorry, I wasn't very clear, was I?

I remember you posting a while back that there would likely be a lot more to come once Jim got round to switching to a more promising type of cap. Do I misremember? Has Jim already switched? 150 uN is an order of magnitude above the 10-20 uN we were hearing about just a couple of months back - yes, I know it's transient, but still. How did he get there? The caps change, or simply by turning up the juice?

Kind Regards,
Ric

Looks from the pictures on NSF that a bit more effort has been spent on mechanically tuning the stack--like adding the monster reaction mass at the end.

[tomclarke]

Sorry, I missed some things:
or temperature effects:

convection - if vacuum not good
radiation - (don't dismiss it!)
radiometer type effects (which I don't properly understand)

It is a pity Jim probably can't publish his stuff. You really need the type of critical appraisal from multiple 3rd parties that comes from referees to identify all possible holes.

Tom:

Jim has been publishing his M-E related experimental results on a regular basis in the Foundations of Physics and various engineering journals such as the AIAA, STAIF/AIP and SPECIF proceedings for decades now. And ALL of the spurious effects you've mentioned have been checked, double checked and mitigated as required. Jim is seeing a real thrust signal and no, its origins are not from any mundane source we have investigated to date which are close to a hundred now. We do know where the major problem in getting consistent force output results are with these present M-E PZT based stacks and its making their mechanical and electrical resonances align and track each other over both frequency, phase and Stack temperature variations that directly affect the stack's mechanical and electrical resonant frequencies. Once this thrust stability issue is resolved, it’s back to finding ways to increase the thrust by at least another couple of orders of magnitude that is comparable with current Hall Effect ion thrusters such as Busek produces, see below. That kind of performance immediately leads to commercial applications that can pay the bills while further optimization research on these types of M-E devices is pursued.

http://www.busek.com/technologies__hall.htm

Paul,

it would be great if you posted here links to published stuff, particularly write-ups of recent experiments?

I agree if you can get any significant UDF, even tiny, it is highly commercial. But it is also something that will set the scientific establishment abuzz, so it all comes down to showing clearly that you can get something.

What you say sounds very exciting - but you'll have to bear with my wanting to check all carefully. It is just so easy for subtle errors to remain in experiments where results are low in amplitude. In fact errors can easily remain in experiments with much larger apparent results!

Tom

[chrismb]

Jim is seeing a real thrust signal and no, its origins are not from any mundane source we have investigated to date which are close to a hundred now.

chrismb only ever asked about one mundane source; to put the electrical energy source within the same inertial frame as the body being 'thrusted' - that is to say, for the whole device to be fully inertially isolated, as per design intent.

Perhaps he might have been thinking that sending electrons around a leg of a circuit, with fast dI/dt rates, will always produce some thrust that is ultimately reacted at the source of those electrons, much as a rail-gun does.

But chrismb doesn't post here anymore to discuss it. All the same, it might be interesting to see a link to an experiment that lays that straightforward critique to rest.

[GIThruster]

chris' concerns have no merit as there are plenty of controls in place to see that such things are not producing a spurious signal masquerading as thrust. Placing the power supply on the balance arm is an unnecessary and backward approach for the reasons that have been explained to chris several times now, especially including that many of the scientific controls Jim uses would need to be abandoned.

[paulmarch]

Jim is seeing a real thrust signal and no, its origins are not from any mundane source we have investigated to date which are close to a hundred now.

chrismb only ever asked about one mundane source; to put the electrical energy source within the same inertial frame as the body being 'thrusted' - that is to say, for the whole device to be fully inertially isolated, as per design intent.

Perhaps he might have been thinking that sending electrons around a leg of a circuit, with fast dI/dt rates, will always produce some thrust that is ultimately reacted at the source of those electrons, much as a rail-gun does.

But chrismb doesn't post here anymore to discuss it. All the same, it might be interesting to see a link to an experiment that lays that straightforward critique to rest.

Chrismb:

I know of your concern and many others share it. Woodward thinks that his experimental controls have accounted for this back reaction through the power leads and their power supply issue, but others repestfully disagree. So we won't really know whether it works or not until we fly a working unit as a self-contained free-fall experiment in a vacuum, so you've got a while longer to entertain your doubts about the accumulated M-E data to date.

Best,

[chrismb]

Placing the power supply on the balance arm is an unnecessary and backward approach

chrismb would have to accept that in theory the theory GIT aspouses is correct. chrismb would have to accept it, because it is a tautology.

However, experimental rigour will have to demonstrate thrust is still generated when the driving source of electrons is in the same inertial frame. It is inevitable, because that is the intent of the device. Building such a prototype device would therefore require this.

In practice, practice rarely follows theory [one suspects, especially GIT's theories]. Rather, it is the other way around.

[paulmarch]

Sorry, I missed some things:
or temperature effects:

convection - if vacuum not good
radiation - (don't dismiss it!)
radiometer type effects (which I don't properly understand)

It is a pity Jim probably can't publish his stuff. You really need the type of critical appraisal from multiple 3rd parties that comes from referees to identify all possible holes.

Tom:

Jim has been publishing his M-E related experimental results on a regular basis in the Foundations of Physics and various engineering journals such as the AIAA, STAIF/AIP and SPECIF proceedings for decades now. And ALL of the spurious effects you've mentioned have been checked, double checked and mitigated as required. Jim is seeing a real thrust signal and no, its origins are not from any mundane source we have investigated to date which are close to a hundred now. We do know where the major problem in getting consistent force output results are with these present M-E PZT based stacks and its making their mechanical and electrical resonances align and track each other over both frequency, phase and Stack temperature variations that directly affect the stack's mechanical and electrical resonant frequencies. Once this thrust stability issue is resolved, it’s back to finding ways to increase the thrust by at least another couple of orders of magnitude that is comparable with current Hall Effect ion thrusters such as Busek produces, see below. That kind of performance immediately leads to commercial applications that can pay the bills while further optimization research on these types of M-E devices is pursued.

http://www.busek.com/technologies__hall.htm

Paul,

it would be great if you posted here links to published stuff, particularly write-ups of recent experiments?

I agree if you can get any significant UDF, even tiny, it is highly commercial. But it is also something that will set the scientific establishment abuzz, so it all comes down to showing clearly that you can get something.

What you say sounds very exciting - but you'll have to bear with my wanting to check all carefully. It is just so easy for subtle errors to remain in experiments where results are low in amplitude. In fact errors can easily remain in experiments with much larger apparent results!

Tom

Tom:

For starters check out Woodward's CSUF home page URL:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/component/ ... f-woodward

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

I'd then go over to NSF Advanced Concept Forum and look at all the papers that I've posted of Jim's over the last few years,

Best,

[GIThruster]

Woodward thinks that his experimental controls have accounted for this back reaction through the power leads and their power supply issue, but others repestfully disagree.

They can disagree all they like. The effect chris has written about again and again over the years cannot scale cubically with frequency and would not reverse with the thruster, nor cancel when the thruster is placed in vertical. There are lots of ways to show what he's talking about cannot be happening and he has had this explained many times.

BTW, I found a cheap amp that operates from 20-120 Khz and automatically finds and locks to the transducer's resonant frequency. If anyone is interested in working with Jim on a replication please shoot me a note. A couple 43mm dia. X 20 mm thick, 200 Khz discs ($30@ plus a third for an accelerometer) glued together so they resonate at 100Khz would likely break the mN barrier. Looks like a very low budget replication is possible if someone has a means to measure mN thrusts reliably.

[DeltaV]

We do know where the major problem in getting consistent force output results are with these present M-E PZT based stacks and its making their mechanical and electrical resonances align and track each other over both frequency, phase and Stack temperature variations that directly affect the stack's mechanical and electrical resonant frequencies.

Paul, as far as is known, what part do various hystereses, deadzones and other nonlinear phenomena play in impeding progress towards aligning the resonances? Is there a leading suspect?

Apologies if this was already answered upthread.

[paulmarch]

We do know where the major problem in getting consistent force output results are with these present M-E PZT based stacks and its making their mechanical and electrical resonances align and track each other over both frequency, phase and Stack temperature variations that directly affect the stack's mechanical and electrical resonant frequencies.

Paul, as far as is known, what part do various hystereses, deadzones and other nonlinear phenomena play in impeding progress towards aligning the resonances? Is there a leading suspect?

Apologies if this was already answered upthread.

DeltaV:

The nonlinear phenomenon you mention could all play a part in the problem, but which one does what is still a mystery at least to me at the moment. My guess is that we will have to apply a phase locked loop control solution between the PZT-Stack's mechanical and electrical circuits using the available stack's voltage & current waveforms AND the stack's mechanical acceleration and phasing information provides by at least two accelerometers that are embedded in the stack. I know Jim has at least one accelerometer disc embedded in the stack now, but he will need at least two to determine the order and velocity of acoustic reflections in the stack which can then be used to actively tune their magnitudes and timings so they are in synch with the stack's electrical drive signal.

Best,

[chrismb]

They can disagree all they like. The effect chris has written about again and again over the years cannot scale cubically with frequency and would not reverse with the thruster,

So, for one to understand so it may be explained to chrismb, you are saying that you can use a conventional understanding of physics to disprove a claim against a 'new' piece of physics which doesn't conform to current understanding.

One might suspect chrismb would say 'you're having your cake, AND eating it!'.

nor cancel when the thruster is placed in vertical.

chrismb would likely say you've lost your credibility at this point. vertical to what, exactly? Vertical to some sort of 'true universal verticality' from which its 'inertia' is derived?

These machines that produce thrust from nowhere always come back to requiring a 'universal datum' to which they will react, so it's behaviour must vary whether it is on planet earth, the latitude it is at, and the time of day.

What is 'vertical' to an experiment in the US at 12 noon is horizontal at 6PM. What time of day did these experiments run?

These machines will be amazing because they should allow triangulation to the 'true universal stationary point'. Their performance will vary according to their location and attitude.

[93143]

So, for one to understand so it may be explained to chrismb, you are saying that you can use a conventional understanding of physics to disprove a claim against a 'new' piece of physics which doesn't conform to current understanding.

One might suspect chrismb would say 'you're having your cake, AND eating it!'.

The proposed source of error is conventional physics. Therefore predicting what a spurious signal caused by it would look like, if present, requires only conventional physics. Once you've done that, all you need to do is compare this prediction with the data and see if they jive. If they don't, the proposed source of error cannot fully explain the results.

Some basic logic is in order when attempting to discuss a topic like this.

nor cancel when the thruster is placed in vertical.

chrismb would likely say you've lost your credibility at this point. vertical to what, exactly?

The axis of rotation of the torsion balance, of course.

[GIThruster]

What he said, only to be a little more clear in reminding you chris of our last conversation on this point:

One of the controls Jim uses is to be able to physically reverse the orientation of the thruster on the balance but included in this, it the ability to point the thruster not left and not right, but up or down. Since the balance operates in horizontal, there is almost no coupling between thrust and the balance when one does this. Theoretically, any legitimate thrust should disappear when the thruster is pointed vertical, which is just what Jim's thrusts always do.

Now if you're proposing a signal is some sort of coupling, this would not change by altering the direction of the thruster. So when you point the thruster at the floor and the thrust signature goes to zero, you have confidence that you're not looking at several different kinds of spurious signal. In effect, the thruster becomes it's own perfect dummy load.

There are other controls to show that other sorts of spurious sources are not masquerading as thrust signatures. Vacuum is a good example of how Jim demonstrates he is not looking at ionic or thermal wind effects. A well designed experimental apparatus is capable of all these things and you would need to do without most of them were you to make a self-contained (meaning power on-board) apparatus the priority.

And this was all explained to you over a year ago when last you brought up your objections in snide manner. I'd prefer you not share your senior moments on this issue again.