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

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by GIThruster »

Yes, it's nice to see Keith taking a more active interest. Sure hope they videotape the presentation. Greg Meholic's presentation is likewise very good.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by djolds1 »

GIThruster wrote:Yes, it's nice to see Keith taking a more active interest. Sure hope they videotape the presentation. Greg Meholic's presentation is likewise very good.
Has he updated anything on his tahyonic concepts in the last few years?

Is the presentation available anywhere?
Vae Victis

tokamac
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:50 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by tokamac »

GIThruster wrote: Woodward's theory is very different from the ZPF, QVF, White stuff you're comparing it with. In M-E theory, the ability to generate negative mass does in theory create the ability to create a warp field, but that field is probably easier to build and cheaper to build as a wormhole generator than as a ship's warp drive. A warp ship in M-E theory is really a ship that can open its own wormhole. It does not warp spacetime the way Sonny promotes and in fact if he were right in his model about how to warp spacetime, we would have had evidence of this a couple years ago. Both his warp experiments were complete failures. there is no evidence for what he is still selling. Making prettier computer models of what his warp ship would look like is just fundraising. It does not come to the issue of the evidence. The evidence is that his model is BROKEN and he has demonstrated this twice with null findings.
John Cramer published a column in the July-August 2014 double issue of Analog Science Fiction & Fact magazine:
  • Cramer, John G. (19 January 2014). "Is it Space Drive Time?". Analog Science Fiction and Fact (Norwalk, Connecticut: Penny Publications, published July 2014) (990).
He clearly details those differences between Mach's principle and the quantum vacuum approach for "propellantless" space drives. However, he does not report such "null results" you talked about from Eagleworks experiments. He even mentions:
  • "thrusts of a few milli-newtons in brief pulses and a few micro-newtons in continuous operation" and a thrust-to-power ratio of "roughly 10-20 μN/kW, a factor of 3 or more better than a photon rocket" for Jim's METs;
  • "thrusts of 20 to 110 μN and thrust/power ratios of 1 to 20 N/kW, about six orders of magnitude better than a photon thruster" for Sonny's Q-thruster.
He wrote this back in January 2014 and states the numbers are from Sonny's talk at Spacevision 2013. So this was many months before you mention null results. During the SpaceVision meeting, I wonder if Sonny twisted the facts more than the spacetime?

Whatever, even if this is the case, the average reader will conclude through this article that Q-thrusters have a thrust/power ratio about 3 orders of magnitude higher than METs…

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

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by GIThruster »

tokamac wrote: He wrote this back in January 2014 and states the numbers are from Sonny's talk at Spacevision 2013. So this was many months before you mention null results. During the SpaceVision meeting, I wonder if Sonny twisted the facts more than the spacetime?
There are several issues mixed up here. First is that I was talking about the warp interferometer work at Eagle where they got null results but reported them as "non-null". That was a direct misrepresentation of the facts. They got all null results for the warp experiment, which NASA had instructed them to do before the thruster studies.

The thruster studies were later and those results are all mixed up too, since the largest thrust results of the bunch were reportedly the result of coupling with the stainless vacuum chamber and when the balance was later grounded properly the thrust went away. So when folks like Cramer quote thrust figures, he may be quoting thrusts he doesn't know were later invalidated through proper test protocols.

So far as I know, the only real thrusts they've seen where switching transients in the 110 uN range which are explained by Woodward's theory, not Sonny's model and there were no positive results with the warp study at all.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Carl White
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by Carl White »

GIThruster wrote: Woodward by contrast has demonstrated thrust as well as the fluctuation itself with his rotator back around 2008-9. What is really needed are funds to move Woodward's work into commercial development. Maybe $2M for a lab, VHF pre-prototype thruster and power system, and another $2M for a miniaturized power system, prototype thruster and a nanosat TRL demonstration flying from ISS. That's significant cash and Woodward has no idea how to raise it. I don't even think he's trying.
The latter part (nanosat demonstration) would be convincing enough for the research grants to flow after that, would it not?

So, hypothetically, is there anything we as a group could do to help reach that point?

Planetary Resources is planning to send up a constellation of small probes. Could they be convinced to allow a nanosat experiment to piggyback as part of one of their payloads? Maybe even use one of their camera probes to record it?

Could a Kickstarter raise enough money to fund development of the experimental package?

Would Dr. Woodward be interested in any of this?

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

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by GIThruster »

Woodward is reportedly pursuing funding at the present time, and I have been looking into an HF MET design specifically intended to go into a nanosat for TRL7 testing. I'll also be applying for kickstarter and grant funds in the coming months. Nice thing about nanosat testing is one can get a free ride to orbit. However my own design is not going to be ready for that until phase 2 so it is quite a way off.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by GIThruster »

I've had some recent requests to be added to Jim's general reading list. Just to remind, Jim is on vacation in CO for the summer, and one of the other physicists at Fullerton, Dr, Heidi Fern, along with one of her grad students is refitting the lab with Labview. This should be in service around September when Jim returns. During the school year, it is Jim's habit to write his general reading list with the details of each week's work, including data both raw and analyzed, with photos and charts, etc. He spends a huge amount of time to ensure the work remains open science, and if you want to be on the receiving end of all that data, write me here with your email address, and a couple sentences about your background (if you're an EE, this is the place to tell him) and interests. This is not an interview but this list is no place for kids, etc. It's where generals, intelligence officers and captains of industry keep tabs on Jim's work. Please treat the list with respect.

There are perhaps a score of Talk-Polywell people who have been added to Jim's list over the years and some have remained a continuing part of the process. You're invited to peek over his shoulder as he does this work.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by DeltaV »

Some interesting thoughts on the foundations of classical electrodynamics in media:
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Man ... /0/all/0/1

Maybe some utility for analyses of Mach Effect devices...

Carl White
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by Carl White »

In case this hasn't already been posted:
Exotic Propulsion Initiative at the Space Studies Institute

15 min presentation from "A Matter Of Some Gravity" by Gary Hudson during the 2014 NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts Symposium (NIAC 2014).

...

Donations to the Exotic Propulsion Initiative of the Space Studies Institute project will be first used to extend and replicate Professor Woodward’s provocative research findings.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/10/exotic ... space.html

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by Betruger »

So Woodward's lab is getting funding from this Initiative of Hudson's..
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.

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

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by GIThruster »

SSI hasn't got any money. The royalties from Jim's book go to SSI which then is supposed to turn funds over to Jim for the lab work, but I don't think there's ever been a single such transfer. No real money coming or going at all.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Carl White
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by Carl White »

SSI hasn't got any money. The royalties from Jim's book go to SSI which then is supposed to turn funds over to Jim for the lab work, but I don't think there's ever been a single such transfer. No real money coming or going at all.
So this goes back to my earlier question: is there anything we can do to speed the process along, especially since Dr. Woodward isn't going to live forever? It looks to me like SSI isn't making a serious drive to add members (and might not even want to communicate with semi-informed or uninformed people anyhow), so might not ever be a serious source of funding. How are GIThruster's plans for a Kickstarter coming along?

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

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by GIThruster »

I'm not looking at Kickstarter right now. Given my belief that what Jim has works, it makes little sense to use Kickstarter which can fund a couple hundred thousand dollars at best. That's not enough to bring this stuff to market, which is my goal. I am not interested in schemes that accomplish less, because I have sat by for most of a decade now and realized that without the funding for a commercial grade application, we'll forever be stuck with people asking for more thrust, or better controls, etc. I think it's time to set "proof of science" aside and do "proof of technology" which is to say, build a commercial grade application.

I'm looking for a Principle Investigator to oversea a DARPA project I plan to administrate. In round figures we need about $1M for the thrust lab, about $1M for the thruster component characterization and thruster fabrication and about $1.2M for the power system design in order to have a system small enough to go onto the various balances around the country for validation testing. No more waiting for replications that never come.

IMHO, the reason we never see real breakthrough work in this industry is we never see adequate funding. For much less than what DARPA has spent at Eagleworks, we can produce a true commercial grade thruster that can more than replace Hall thrusters. This however requires millions of dollars, not the smallish funding you see at Kickstarter and NIAC. To land the phase 1 TRL6 grant, you have to cover all the TRL1-5 work, propose the precise work you plan to do for phase 1, propose what you plan to do for phase 2 (TRL7, which can change once you have phase 1 results--DARPA is flexible), you have to explain in detail what industrial processes are necessary to mass produce your technology, who and how that can be done (TRL8) and you have to explain how you have a commercially viable technology--who will buy this other than DOD (TRL9). That's a LOT of work for a grant proposal and I can't jump in the way that's necessary until I find the proper PhD to lead the project as PI. So right now, most of what I'm doing is searching. I already have all the rest of the requirements worked out. Finding who would manufacture this was certainly the most challenging part, but that's solved. Took several years. Could easily take another year to find the right point person. At the same time, I'm looking for another point person to lead a similar project to develop our proprietary radiation hardening technology. That's a simpler project but challenging nonetheless.

So from my perspective, the real problem is lack of qualified people. Most of those who could do this work, are wasting their time with the QVF nonsense, which makes me crazy since it so obviously contradicts Einstein. You'd think the smart guys would have more common sense, but instead they're letting NASA lead them by the nose.

Is there anything you can do to aid the process? Sure. Send me contact info on anyone who you believe would make a good PI for either project. They not only need to have all the analysis skills of the lead scientist, but the maturity and experience of a seasoned engineer who knows how to work with others both inside and outside the company. The work involves collaboration with university materials science departments, plasma physics departments, etc., and work in private industry. Whoever takes the job is going to earn their cool quarter mil per year.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by birchoff »

@GiThruster

The one thing I was not able to get from Jim's book was the expected thrust scaling. Do you have any information on what conservative scaling of a MET would be?

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

Re: Mach Effect progress

Post by GIThruster »

Different iterations of the technology scale at different rates, but the current thruster design scales most interestingly/importantly: linearly with the frequency and quadratically with the dielectric constant of the active mass. So if you go from 50 Khz to 500 Mhz you have about 10,000X as much thrust from the same amount of active mass, but note that the mass will be distributed very differently since it needs to resonate at that frequency and the thickness is inversely proportional to frequency. Likewise, if you go from k~700 (Jim's last thruster) to k~60,000, you're looking at a large increase in thrust. We're looking at a design of about 500 Mhz with k~ 60,000, so a very large increase in thrust. Likewise, with other thruster Figures Of Merit (FOM's) such as thrust/mass and thrust to power. Since any acoustic reflector used for the current design also scales inversely proportional to the frequency, and may include several materials and layers of materials, the thrust/mass actually scales higher than the above (though still linear.)

There are other, even more important parts to optimizing design. The mechanical Q of the thruster impacts both the 1w signal's ability to generate 2w M-E (linear relation), and the 2w signal's "rectification" of M-E into thrust (linear as well), so thrust scales roughly with the square of the mechanical Q though this is not precisely true, as these Q's are not 1 figure but 2. We're looking at a design with mechanical Q of about 2,000. Woodward's is about 700. The important difference though is the Q off resonance, where the second frequency is forced to work. Our design should have vastly enhanced mechanical Q off resonance. Also, our design avoids the heavy mechanical preloading system Woodward's has, so picks up another factor in thrust/weight. In general, it is fair to say that in good UHF designs, the mass of the thruster becomes trivial in comparison to the mass of the power system (<1%), except in cases of very large arrays that share their power systems and thus drive the mass of the power system down significantly. We won't see this in our phase 2, TRL7 iteration since we'll be flying a nanosat, but we should have proof of concept for larger systems like what will be necessary to maneuver ISS to equatorial orbit or fly Dragon 3.0 to Mars.

There are other considerations for commercial thruster design than optimization. For instance, you need a design that provides serious thermal management across a broad spectrum of environment (sun and shade), and that does this efficiently. IMHO, there is no way to use PMN and have an efficient thermal management system, since the material only maintains its high k value within a 2*K thermal bandwidth. The current design with PMN would use more power in space to remove waste heat from the thruster than to run the thruster! Our material has not been fully characterized yet, but it appears to have more than 200*K thermal bandwidth. This means we can run it hot and use direct, black body radiation cooling (p=T^4) to radiate the dissipated power direct out into space. Worth noting here is we already have confirmed the frequency drift with temperature--something Woodward has never been able to do with any of this thruster components--as 17-19ppm/*K. This means we can build a truly broadband temperature thruster and optimize it for high temperature operation. Also like PMN, our material is not polarized, so it cannot depolarize. There is no telling how long the material will last if handled properly--could function for many years before beginning to break down. Unpolarized electromechanical ceramics generally break down as a function of moisture entering the material over the course of a decade, and we expect to find a rarity of moisture in space. This design could last for decades with no appreciable decay in thrust over time.

Finally the power system magic needs to be accounted for. According to theory, the reason we see thrust spikes during the on/off transients in Jim's work, and with the Shawyer resonator with dielectric inside, is that these spikes generate the best conditions to create M-E. What we therefore want is a pulsed AC system, unlike anything I am familiar with. It is important here to note that although the drive on these materials is limited to their dielectric strength (PMN ~ 40kV/cm) these materials can always endure far larger fields when limited to nanoseconds. So even though we're looking at a material with a k of 60,000 at 500 Mhz using kV/cm fields, we can actually put nS MV/cm fields on the material intermittently during the AC pulse transients. So it is possible with some power system magic to generate far larger thrusts than what any of these issues above would suggest. We'll have to wait to get the stuff on the balance to find out.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Post Reply