Mach Effect progress

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:53 pm

kunkmiester wrote:Tesla didn't have the principle of conservation of energy. Almost all of his work was done using aether theories, even after the electron. He didn't use it or relativity until no one would take him seriously otherwise, and some of the reading I've done indicates even then he was simply using his own work, then rewording it so the mainstream physicists and engineers could understand.

The electron was discovered in the 1890s, and wasn't mainstream until much later. Tesla--and all the other 19th century workers like Mach and Faraday and Ohm et al--used aether in his basic theories, and the differences between these and modern theories must be understood to understand the works properly. Somewhat frustrating since there's a lack of good books reconciling the two viewpoints.

I think Tesla was missing a theory of energy loss. (Which may be what you mean). I have read his works (mostly technology) and he never includes R in his LC circuits. If he did the math would lead to correct conclusions.

kunkmiester · Post by **kunkmiester** » Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:52 am

I'm honestly not quite sure what I mean since I'm not familiar enough with either set of theories to put down the equivalents. I wish I had more physics, but they make you pass calculus first.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:10 pm

kunkmiester wrote:I'm honestly not quite sure what I mean since I'm not familiar enough with either set of theories to put down the equivalents. I wish I had more physics, but they make you pass calculus first.

That is too bad because other than understanding the meaning of the symbols algebra is more than adequate for understanding physics. At least at the level discussed here.

R.Nkolo · Post by **R.Nkolo** » Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:38 pm

MSimon wrote:...
That is too bad because other than understanding the meaning of the symbols algebra is more than adequate for understanding physics ...

Newton did need calculus for his laws of motions.
Einstein had to understand newtonian Physics in order to take the laws of motion to another level.
Quantum mechanics uses differential equations and is relativistic(need Einstein).

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:18 am

R.Nkolo wrote:
MSimon wrote:...
That is too bad because other than understanding the meaning of the symbols algebra is more than adequate for understanding physics ...
Newton did need calculus for his laws of motions.
Einstein had to understand newtonian Physics in order to take the laws of motion to another level.
Quantum mechanics uses differential equations and is relativistic(need Einstein).

To develop the theories yes. To use them in most circumstances? Algebra.

I haven't had to use calculus (other than understanding the principles) in 40+ years of engineering.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:05 pm

Just by way of update, Jim Woodward sent out an excellent ppt the other day explaining in detail the kinds of statistical methods used to generate trustworthy data, and especially the data he generates in the lab. Anyone who wants to know how he gets sigma 6-10 data will want to be placed on his reading list.

Also note I am selling off much of the equipment in my shop, including things like my Welch roughing pump, my vacuum oven, some meters, grinders, trinkets of all sorts. Anyone interested in building their own experimental shop/lab should write me a private message and we'll talk about how to get you rock bottom prices. I'm willing to let all this stuff go cheap as dirt if what this means is enabling a future experimentalist.

Ric Capucho · Post by **Ric Capucho** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:00 am

GIThruster wrote:Ric, IMHO, proof of concept engineering is to build something that produces commercial grade thrusts. 20mN with just a couple hundred watts is more than enough to replace all Hall thrusters, given the thrust die-off issue is addressed. You just need to be able to do this reliably and repeatably, under the proper control conditions such as vacuum.

IMHO, the only way to do this cheaply is to use a power system and Z-matching in the Ham range so you can use cheap, used EBay stuff, especially including a Johnson matchbox style tuner. You then are restricted to ceramics the thickness that corresponds to the frequency you have the power system for.

After that you identify the ceramic you can afford. You might for instance decide to use relatively cheap BaTiO3 single crystal targets heated to cubic phase. This would give you very high power density and frequency. and a very large active mass.

You might instead choose to use a phased array or multiple half wave resonator such as a monolythic actuator, where each layer of ceramic in a large stack corresponds to 1/4 wave of the frequency you drive at. This has the advantages that the ceramic from PiCeramics is co-fired ceramic encapsulated, and you have reasons to expect the lifetime of the ceramic to be improved several orders magnitude.

A viable third choice is to use PMN-PT from TRS technologies for it's extremely high electrostrictive electromechanical linking coefficient, extremely high k value and extremely high electrical standoff. The trouble with materials like PMN-85 is that it only works well in the narrow temperature bandwidth of 85*c, where it is in cubic phase and has a k value of 40,000. Out of cubic phase, it still has a k value far above PZT (what Jim uses) and BaTiO3 (what Paul used in the MLT), but its bulk acceleration drops off hugely. It's great stuff if you can get it, and you have to design around the fact it is primarily an electrostrictor rather than a Piezoactive ceramic, so provides no 1W mechanical response. You thus need a design for this material to provide another means of bulk acceleration to generate the M-E. I believe this is the direction Jim's next gen work with Heidi Fern will take.

In any case, even the simplest experiment that can be hopeful of success is very complex, and not best used to scare the cat, and if you can remove many of the hurdles by using someone else's measurement apparatus, vacuum and protocols, you can focus on just the thruster and power system itself, which is often the smaller part of the task.

The first question to ask is, do you have 1,000 hours to spend on your hobby over the next couple years? If so, there are several sources of help available. If with help you can design and build something that you can measure thrust on a Mettler H20, I'll ship you mine. If that produces results, best is then try to get it in the vacuum chambers of others who do this work.

Hi Mr Thruster, All,

Sorry for not responding earlier, but thank you for the replies.

Your point is well made in terms of funds, time and complexity. However I don't think I need a vacuum or a Mettler unless I intend to perform serious research, and generate scientifically acceptable results. Basically, I'm interested in engineering a working prototype, and (if scalable enough) use it to drive some kind of light, free-wheeled toy buggy; in air, so the cat doesn't suffocate.

Kind Regards,
Ric

randomencounter · Post by **randomencounter** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 1:19 pm

Rio, I don't think you're going to be able to get enough thrust to be interesting from any of the atmospheric (and cat) safe electronic thruster technologies.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:29 pm

randomencounter wrote:Rio, I don't think you're going to be able to get enough thrust to be interesting from any of the atmospheric (and cat) safe electronic thruster technologies.

Agreed, if Woordward and company haven't done it yet, you're very unlikely to do it.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:36 pm

A self-contained device one can drive around on an air-hocky table is a TRL-6-7 venture. If you can do that, more power to you. I think though, you'll find it's much harder than it seems.

If you're really game for that, I suggest you contact Woodward yourself for an in depth tutorial.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:14 pm

You know what's missing from this thread and plans behind the effect.....time lines. What are the time lines to getting any viable thruster out of this whole deal? I ask so that those who claim to be in the know with regard to Mach Effect can enlighten myself and others.

Are we going to see some thrusters in my life time?

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:40 pm

I think discussing timelines would probably be more appropriate when the effect has been reliably replicated in several labs. I don't think the M-E has reached that point yet.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:08 pm

I agree with GeeGee. Too I can say Jim has never expressed interest in proposing a timeline. Most of us have been astonished for years that his work gets so little interest from USG, who is certainly able to finance it and turn it into a commercial application in fairly short order. I think everyone involved with the work thought that the rotator experiment provided such ample evidence that the work would be picked up immediately. I was the only dissenter. My contention was that because it doesn't produce actual thrust, that people would be hesitant to act on the data. Basically the difference between convincing and compelling evidence. The rotator was convincing to most, but compelling to none. No grant money.

The current work, trying to match the electrical and accoustic resonances to enhance thrust; were it to suddenly produce mN thrusts, would generate grant funds immediately I should think, because those thrusts would be commercial level. There would be market pressure to replace the the Hall thrusters on commercial sats. With mN thrusts, the only obstacle is demonstrating years of continuous operation, so you'd want to get a thruster running with that sort of thrust and let it go for several years. It's possible no one would buy them for ten years, because they want to see the longevity of the thruster, but certainly after that sort of experiment was begun, the doors would swing wide with people wanting a piece of the space drive pie, be it as investors or to use in their own applications. For instance, one would expect Planetary Resources to want to develop the tech, as would Bigelow Aerospace, Space X, N-G, L-M, Boeing, etc. All these would need to buy non-exclusive licenses, and they would get them much more cheaply if they consented to work in a consortium that shared research data. That could accelerate the research or bog it down in years of legal morass--depending upon who you talk to.

Also too, there is the influence of the book once it's published. There are few ways to predict how that might affect future research. One engineer could read the book, take it to someone like Musk or Bigelow, and suddenly everything is changed. There's really no way to tell. What I can tell you is the book was written specifically at the level engineers will appreciate, with enough of the math to demonstrate this is peer reviewed theory, but simple and practical enough to have something fresh to take away on every page. Jim is an excellent writer, and it's going to be an excellent book, published by an excellent academic publisher. All win-win.

It's good to note too, that although the chief scientists at NASA say they cannot support the work because they have no one who understands it, that could well change once the book is out. These excuses won't mean much when all the work is laid out on a level most engineers can understand. I'm sure Glen (Tony) Robertson at Marshall would be thrilled to see their research center reopened and focused on M-E work, which he was doing before VSE closed them down.

djolds1 · Post by **djolds1** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:42 am

ScottL wrote:You know what's missing from this thread and plans behind the effect.....time lines. What are the time lines to getting any viable thruster out of this whole deal? I ask so that those who claim to be in the know with regard to Mach Effect can enlighten myself and others.

It took 117 years to move from the plausible model of the turbine (Claude Burdin, 1822) to the first flying turbojet (He-178, 1939). Once hardware reaches maturity, the typical upswing cycle of the logistic curve of development will kick in (Aerospace 1910-'60, IT 1970-xxxx, Biotech ~2000-xxxx).

ScottL wrote:Are we going to see some thrusters in my life time?

Maybe.

happyjack27 · Post by **happyjack27** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:41 am

R.Nkolo wrote:
MSimon wrote:...
That is too bad because other than understanding the meaning of the symbols algebra is more than adequate for understanding physics ...
Newton did need calculus for his laws of motions.
Einstein had to understand newtonian Physics in order to take the laws of motion to another level.
Quantum mechanics uses differential equations and is relativistic(need Einstein).

True, but the famous shrodinger equation is not relativistic. Dirac actually came up with it first but junked it because it was not relativistic. He also originally junked the Dirac equation, which is relativistic, because its results included solutions w/negative energy. Turns out it was right: the he later realized that the negative energies could be turned positive by flipping the charges of the particles. Thus dirac's relativistic quantumn electrodynamics equation predicted antimatter -- correctly.