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 »

chrismb wrote: You observe no net energy flow in or out of this boundary yet once the ME device is switched on, the ship starts moving. . .
Chris, what you observe is gravinertial flux, or the thing that gives matter its mass, flowing in and out of the box. You are not talking about a closed system. Remember also, that matter and energy do not have to be conserved separately and in fact often are not.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

That is a speculation of an effect not yet observed.

If it was either an inevitable conclusion to known physics, or a well-observed phenomenon in need of an explanation, I might engage with it. But until there is an observed effect with a power supply in the same inertial frame (within the same 'boundary') as the induced motion then I'm unable to engage with it as a phenomenon in need of an explanation, and for sure I do not regard it as anything more than a claim.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Oh come on now, Chris; either you're objecting to the theory as it exists or not at all. Making up your own version so you can find fault is a waste of everyone's time.

The theory posits this flux as a natural consequence of Mach's Principle. If you don't like it, don't buy stock, but certainly don't waste people's time with objections to a theory that doesn't exist!

If there's no flux, Woodward's theory would say the ship in your example cannot move, so whether you affirm or deny the premise of flux, your example fails.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

GIThruster wrote:Oh come on now, Chris; either you're objecting to the theory as it exists or not at all. Making up your own version so you can find fault is a waste of everyone's time.
I'm doing none of these things. I am saying that I do not find anything remotely scientific in trying to determine whether a claim is substantiated before there are any facts that make it relevant.

You might complain that I do not accept 'as a fact' something you consider an observed ME effect on an isolated system if you like, but to me we've not got past that stage. There is no merit in speculating on mechanisms that seek to explain something that doesn't exist.

"The Scientific Method" requires either to;
a) demonstrate an effect which requires a 'new' explanation, or
b) predict an effect from a hypothesis.

There is no requirement in science to begin to debate claims regarding a hypothesis until the predicted effect is observed. The prediction of the ME effect is that inertia can be generated within an isolated system. I have not yet seen the prediction demonstrated. I have seen preparatory 'tied' experiments leading up to an experiment that may support the hypothesis, but no events yet observed that require the claims of the hypothesis to explain them.

So all I am doing in the meantime is exploring the basis of the hypothesis. One way to do that is to run 'thought' experiments to see if the hypothesis is self-contradictory.

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

Post by GIThruster »

No Chris. I doubt there is anyone here who believes we're having a discussion about anything other than theory.

Your point was, that you believe the theory entails a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. I asked you to explain. You answered with an example of an M-E ship in a box, and said there is nothing entering the box. I pointed out that according to theory this is not so, and so your objection to theory based upon the second law reduces to "not even wrong".

No one is selling M-E as a fact of life. Until we see much greater results in the lab, you will hopefully not see such a misguided venture and even if/when there is such a result, we'll all want to see it replicated. It will certainly be many years after such a process before anyone would start calling M-E a "fact".

My point is, that Jim's theory does not entail a violation of the second law. It's a serious point when made by sebtal, despite he hasn't read Woodward's papers.
"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

Post by GIThruster »

paulmarch wrote:. . .why would energy extraction in the "now" speed up the expansion of the universe in the future instead of slowing it down?
Paul, if we take the universe's expansion as the measure of total system entropy in its "arrow of time" sense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

then as the universe expands it gains entropy. If we reduce entropy locally with an M-E device, the universal 2nd law book keeping requires the rest of the universe accelerate in its expansion.

When does that happen? That's quite beyond me, but given both of us as well as Jim have an abiding curiosity in Cramer's time reversed effects theory in QM, and the notion that M-E radiation reaction travels both forward and backward in time, this question seems to me quite open. It could well be that things like M-E tech use can explain a host of issues, like inflation. Would need a cosmologist who is thoroughly versed in M-E theory to even begin to grapple with the details, IMHO. There is however a mystery to be solved here still--how is it the universe is accelerating in its expansion?--and that is the heart and soul of science, to solve the mystery. Seems to me quite possible, M-E use is the missing piece in the cosmological puzzle.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

GIThruster wrote:No Chris. I doubt there is anyone here who believes we're having a discussion about anything other than theory.

Your point was, that you believe the theory entails a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. I asked you to explain. You answered with an example of an M-E ship in a box, and said there is nothing entering the box. I pointed out that according to theory this is not so, and so your objection to theory based upon the second law reduces to "not even wrong".
I don't understand your point. And it doesn't seem you understand mine!

I've not said the 'theory', as you describe it, is wrong. Actually, a thing only becomes a theory when it explains a given phenomenon. Mach's idea is referred to as a 'principle' (and a pretty loose one at that, seeing as it was someone else who turned it into a physical description!).

So let's just try to be completely clear: A hypothesis has been posited, based on Mach's principle, that thrust can be induced by reactionless means in an isolated system. The experiments Paul has been involved in to date have not disproved this hypothesis, so he continues with them. I have not said 'the hypothesis is wrong', nor have I said 'stop the experiments'! I've merely pointed out that the hypothesis appears to conflict with thermodynamics. The inference from that is either; a) the hypothesis is, indeed, wrong, b) that thermodynamics is an insufficient description, or that c) the argument demonstrating they are in conflict is wrong. You've picked (b). I've no issues with that. Why should I?

You've spent too long in long debates that revolve around conflict alone. I'm merely presenting challenges to the basis of the hypothesis, that is all. There is no need to try to 'defend' anything because I am not 'attacking' anything. Challenging a hypothesis is how science is meant to work. Paul knows that, that's why he presented a position when I provided the thermodynamic challenge, and if he's inclined he might reply to my response. And so it goes on. And until he finds something out experimentally that negates the hypothesis then both he and I will expect that the experiments go on, and occasionally a point may be made to which an argued response may, or may not, be forthcoming. So I don't see your issue. This 'non-science' seems a bit endemic on this forum, these days.

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

Post by GIThruster »

chrismb wrote:A hypothesis has been posited, based on Mach's principle, that thrust can be induced by reactionless means in an isolated system.
No. Not even wrong, for all the reasons you've had explained time and again in this and other threads on this issue. According to theory, none of the universe's parts are "isolated" in any salient sense.

Best we just drop it, Chris.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

What are the planned experiments and experimental devices to prove or disprove this effect? I'm not looking for an academic paper but more or less a layman's description of how such a device utilizing this effect might work.

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

Post by GIThruster »

There are two works in progress.

Paul March will be returning to his work on the Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) in about five months when his contract at JSC ends. The MLT is a propellantless thruster Paul intends to put on a suspension pendulum and look for a deflection. Paul's work is "self contained" in that his thruster intended for deflection carries its own power system onboard.

Jim Woodward will be working on another thruster design, the UFG; starting in late September or October. (He just finished for the season yesterday.) Jim uses the ARC Lite torque balance in his lab at Fullerton. This is where the latest data dump came from just a few days ago. Jim's work is not "self contained" in that power is fed to the thruster through basically frictionless feeds--liquid metal pots--but this allows Jim to use far more scientific controls and generate far more data. He has accelerometers onboard the thruster and can monitor with great precision the internal forces being generated.

In both these cases, the thrust is generated by force rectifying the Mach Effect, which is a 2 omega fluctuation in mass--for each event, the active mass fluctuates first heavy, then light, then heavy, then light again--one single event that can be caused regularly at fairly high frequencies. In Jim's case with the UFG, around 50 Khz (causing a 2w fluctuation at 100 Khz) and in Paul's case up in the Mhz range. Jim may make a move to Mhz operation in Oct but this would be a first for him.

The sneaky trick, and what is often referred to as "just engineering" but is fabulously difficult, is to push the mass in one direction when it's heavy, and pull it in the opposite direction when it's light. This produces net force. The UFG does this with piezo actuators. The MLT does this with crossed e and b fields, but they are both doing the same thing: "push heavy, pull light".

I should also mention that there have been experiments to demonstrate Mach Effects that don't indulge in force rectification at all; they merely produce the fluctuation and look for it. Jim's rotator experiment from two years ago was one of these, where he spun some caps. According to theory, anything with a "bulk mass" (meaning not separate particles and such) being accelerated with respect to the distant stars while simultaneously undergoing a cyclic change in internal energy, will produce this Mach Effect or 2 omega mass fluctuation. Jim put some caps on the end of an arm and spun it about 3,000 rpm to produce I think about 800 Earth gee acceleration, and ran the caps at something like 50 Khz. The caps were attached to accelerometers that measured the change in mass in the caps.

Experiments like the rotator are much easier to do because:

1) you're not engineering the force rectification step at all
2) you don't need a precision balance, pendulum, etc.
3) you don't need vacuum, and nearly so much work with field shielding to ward off spurious forces one might measure

Unfortunately, people don't much pay attention when you're not producing useful force, so rather than just demonstrate the effect, Jim is back to producing thrust. This takes a LOT more effort.

Was that clear, Scott?
Last edited by GIThruster on Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:39 am, edited 5 times in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Thanks for the precis.

So GI is for gravinertial, not gastro-intestinal? :wink:

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

Post by GIThruster »

KitemanSA wrote:So GI is for gravinertial, not gastro-intestinal? :wink:
In my case, it depends upon tequila consumption, as agave will tend to loosen one up.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

How would you, in principle, observationally establish that a MLT is pushing on distant matter?

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

Post by GIThruster »

I don't know a way to do that. As in most science, what I'd expect is rather to establish that the MLT is pushing, and not pushing on anything else.

This is how most science works, not by affirming a positive but by eliminating all the other possibilities.

Lets take the rotator experiment for example. Theory says that one ought to have an M-E 2w signal in anti-phase with electrostriction. So spin up the experimental device. You can see the electrostrictive signal. However, as the rotator spins up and builds force, some anti-phase signal comes into view. There is something that no other theory can explain, that is being demonstrated by the rotator--a 2w force in anti-phase with electrostriction.

Now you can certainly posit some "unknown" force here, but Woodward's theory predicts such a force. Until you find a plausible explanation for the findings with the rotator, one needs to go with what current theory predicts--that M-E is being demonstrated by the rotator.

Just being honest--science doesn't ever prove a thing. Rather, it disproves alternatives.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

GIThruster wrote:
chrismb wrote:A hypothesis has been posited, based on Mach's principle, that thrust can be induced by reactionless means in an isolated system.
No. Not even wrong, for all the reasons you've had explained time and again in this and other threads on this issue. According to theory, none of the universe's parts are "isolated" in any salient sense.

Best we just drop it, Chris.
I don't think it should be dropped.

Can you please define what you understand to be a 'theory'.

Post Reply