Yes well, you'll have to forgive me that I can't read all what Dr. Rodal is posting. It's pretty obvious he is not familiar with the work. Neither was Brito when he decided to do an M-E experiment using a discarded design a year or two after it had been abandoned.
Rodal wrote:* When did such statements first appear in Woodward's publications?
* What magnitude acceleration is a large “bulk” acceleration according to Woodward?
This is almost asking the right question. It is not the magnitude
of the bulk that qualifies it as "bulk" but rather, it is accelerating both
ends of the electromechanical spring found in bulk matter. The MLT design used by Brito in the above only accelerated the mobile ion inside the BaTiO3 dielectric cage or lattice. What needs to happen is one accelerates the entire lattice because this includes then, both ends of these EM springs. Accelerating only the mobile ion does not accelerate the entire spring.
Nembo Buldrini's "bulk acceleration conjecture" that corrected the efforts in M-E research was back in early 2008 I believe. It was certainly before Brito's experiments. And again, this is why it is so foolish to do replications or validations of anyone's work without availing oneself to the current state of the art. (And really one hopes people wanting to criticize such work ought to be cognizant of the facts as well.)
I was actually the first to argue that as far as I understood the theory, not just the mobile ion needed to be accelerated, but the entire lattice. Nembo Buldrini then showed this is true from the math and all of the M-E work immediately changed. I was the first to abandon the Mach Lorentz Thruster (the design Brito used) and focus on the previous design, what is now known as the Mach Effect Thruster or MET.
There are two very important aspects to the Bulk Acceleration Conjecture. First is, since the entire active mass material lattice needs to move, it can't be sintered with compounds intended to repress electromechanical responses the way the MLT caps used were, and I presume the caps used by Brito. The lattice needs to accelerate and the magnitude of this acceleration determines both the magnitude of the Mach Effect generated (by the 1w acceleration) and the mass fluctuation rectification into force (by the 2w acceleration). So what it turns out is, the thrust generated from these 1/4 wave oscillator/resonators is quadratic with mechanical Q, and Brito's design had no Q to speak of. It was not a 1/4 wave resonator. If you don't use a reaction mass or acoustic mirror in your design, even given the shabby acceleration generated by ceramics sintered to repress piezo-action and electrostriction, you get 1/2 wave mechanical action which means acceleration in two opposite directions which then cancel each other as regards force generated.
So long story short is, the design used by Brito had been abandoned a year or two before he did his experiment for good reasons and ought not have worked according to theory. This has all been explained by me in several forums over the years, and if Dr. Rodal thinks he is qualified to remark about "moving the goalposts" or whatever, I would just suggest to him he do his homework first. He could for example read Jim's book.http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships- ... 1461456223