Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:08 pm
“ltgbrown:
I am most definitely not qualified to discuss the physics behind the theory, however, my meager understanding leads me to suggest a qualification of your question. Inertia is not caused by most DISTANT matter. It is caused by most matter. It just so happens that most of it (like 99.9999%) is "relatively" distant. The matter creates a gravitational inertia field, so the field would be present throughout, regardless of distance. So it shouldn't be any different when the universe was "smaller".
Over to Paul to provide the correct response!”
I think you’ve got the view of the Machian universe pretty much spot on. When integrating the mass distribution across our 13.7 billion light year radius causally connected universe, relative to a local mass, most of the mass in this distribution forms an effective mass shell around the local accelerated mass. And as you also note this mass/energy shell and perhaps the cosmological “Dark Energy” field as well is what creates the spacetime stress we call the gravity / inertia or gravinertial field that is the root cause of inertia in a Machian universe.
“Kmkramer:
Mr. March, If I wanted to answer the question "Are you measuring what you think you are measuring?", what would be the best thing to read? Have you submitted a publication somewhere?
(I'm a physicist btw, so a technical publication would be great.)”
I started my career with a BS in Electrical Engineering with minors in math and nuclear physics in 1972 at the University of Texas at Arlington. I’ve learned my GRT and Machian physics working with Dr. Woodward since 1998, with a thirty seven year career in aerospace avionics, electromechanical actuators, power generation & distribution, and space based electric thrusters along the way.
I’ve published three papers in the Space Technology & Applications International Forum (STAIF) conference that was run by the Institute for Space and Nuclear Power Studies at the University of New Mexico in conjunction with the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Reference STAIF-2004, STAIF-2006 and STAIF-2007 Conferences for the papers. If I can figure out how to append pdf files to this forum I’ll also post the last two if you want to read them.
As to your first set of questions, I was always looking for either weight reductions or plus/minus force signals using several different electronic load cells and shielding arrangements that minimized EMI issues with the load cell in question. I’ve also now been through three generations of M-E based test articles incorporating peer reviewed comments from the STAIF reviewers and my most arduous task master, Dr. Woodward. I had experimental issues with my first two test articles that could and did lead me down some interesting dead ends and erroneous interpretations, but I’m now pretty confident in my third generation “Mach-2MHz” Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) test article’s test results as reported in my and Andrew Palfreyman’s STAIF-2006 paper. Andrew provided the bulk of the STAIF-2006 M-E/MLT math model.
djolds1:
“Have you considered using the EEStor supercap material in the next generation series of test devices, or any of the other supercap concepts that have hit maturity recently?”
I’d love to try the EEStor multilayer supercaps in Woodward’s Mark-III M-E rotary system, but they won’t work in the MLT configuration since they are multilayer devices which reverse the E-field direction in each layer, thus nullifying the Lorentz vxB force product when crossed with the applied force rectifying B-field.
“Agreed. Test stand units are open to too much variation in interpretation. You need something that will slap people upside the head and leave them groggy for a week.”
Well, a floating MLT is going to be a several generations away from where we are, for we keeping tripping over the unknown unknowns in the cap dielectric material characteristics such as these high-k ceramic dielectric’s second harmonic electrostrictive signal subtracting from the M-E signal until the M-E signal is driven large enough to swamp out the electrostrictive signal. Never a dull moment.
MSimon:
“Me too (except for the physicist part - I'm an engineer). I'd especially like to have a detailed description of the electronic set up. How it was calibrated (distortion in the drive sine waves for instance). How it was shielded (lots of pictures). What was done to minimize common mode noise. Harmonic distortion and IMD distortion of the detector set up. Distortion vs level curves.”
A lot of my work including some of the data you seek can be found at the below URL. I can also send you a personal copy of my STAIF papers if you will send me your e-mail address or if I can post them at this forum. You can also go the NASAspaceflight.com forum and check out their “Advanced Concept” sub-forum and look for my “Star-Drive” posts with attachments in the Propellantless Field Propulsion and Application section starting on page 14.
http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/alt.php
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... ic=13020.0
TallDave:
"http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMJPC ... 6_4911.pdf
Hmmm.
Well, you know me, I'm always in favor of more studies."
See my reply on this Woodward Mach-5 and -6 MLTs report by the ARC Seibersdorf research group in Brian Wang's "Next Big Future" URL:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/mach-e ... march.html
You might also like to know that the lead author for this ARC/AIAA 2006 paper, Nembo Buldrini, is now working in his spare time on the M-E studies. Want to join us?
I am most definitely not qualified to discuss the physics behind the theory, however, my meager understanding leads me to suggest a qualification of your question. Inertia is not caused by most DISTANT matter. It is caused by most matter. It just so happens that most of it (like 99.9999%) is "relatively" distant. The matter creates a gravitational inertia field, so the field would be present throughout, regardless of distance. So it shouldn't be any different when the universe was "smaller".
Over to Paul to provide the correct response!”
I think you’ve got the view of the Machian universe pretty much spot on. When integrating the mass distribution across our 13.7 billion light year radius causally connected universe, relative to a local mass, most of the mass in this distribution forms an effective mass shell around the local accelerated mass. And as you also note this mass/energy shell and perhaps the cosmological “Dark Energy” field as well is what creates the spacetime stress we call the gravity / inertia or gravinertial field that is the root cause of inertia in a Machian universe.
“Kmkramer:
Mr. March, If I wanted to answer the question "Are you measuring what you think you are measuring?", what would be the best thing to read? Have you submitted a publication somewhere?
(I'm a physicist btw, so a technical publication would be great.)”
I started my career with a BS in Electrical Engineering with minors in math and nuclear physics in 1972 at the University of Texas at Arlington. I’ve learned my GRT and Machian physics working with Dr. Woodward since 1998, with a thirty seven year career in aerospace avionics, electromechanical actuators, power generation & distribution, and space based electric thrusters along the way.
I’ve published three papers in the Space Technology & Applications International Forum (STAIF) conference that was run by the Institute for Space and Nuclear Power Studies at the University of New Mexico in conjunction with the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Reference STAIF-2004, STAIF-2006 and STAIF-2007 Conferences for the papers. If I can figure out how to append pdf files to this forum I’ll also post the last two if you want to read them.
As to your first set of questions, I was always looking for either weight reductions or plus/minus force signals using several different electronic load cells and shielding arrangements that minimized EMI issues with the load cell in question. I’ve also now been through three generations of M-E based test articles incorporating peer reviewed comments from the STAIF reviewers and my most arduous task master, Dr. Woodward. I had experimental issues with my first two test articles that could and did lead me down some interesting dead ends and erroneous interpretations, but I’m now pretty confident in my third generation “Mach-2MHz” Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) test article’s test results as reported in my and Andrew Palfreyman’s STAIF-2006 paper. Andrew provided the bulk of the STAIF-2006 M-E/MLT math model.
djolds1:
“Have you considered using the EEStor supercap material in the next generation series of test devices, or any of the other supercap concepts that have hit maturity recently?”
I’d love to try the EEStor multilayer supercaps in Woodward’s Mark-III M-E rotary system, but they won’t work in the MLT configuration since they are multilayer devices which reverse the E-field direction in each layer, thus nullifying the Lorentz vxB force product when crossed with the applied force rectifying B-field.
“Agreed. Test stand units are open to too much variation in interpretation. You need something that will slap people upside the head and leave them groggy for a week.”
Well, a floating MLT is going to be a several generations away from where we are, for we keeping tripping over the unknown unknowns in the cap dielectric material characteristics such as these high-k ceramic dielectric’s second harmonic electrostrictive signal subtracting from the M-E signal until the M-E signal is driven large enough to swamp out the electrostrictive signal. Never a dull moment.
MSimon:
“Me too (except for the physicist part - I'm an engineer). I'd especially like to have a detailed description of the electronic set up. How it was calibrated (distortion in the drive sine waves for instance). How it was shielded (lots of pictures). What was done to minimize common mode noise. Harmonic distortion and IMD distortion of the detector set up. Distortion vs level curves.”
A lot of my work including some of the data you seek can be found at the below URL. I can also send you a personal copy of my STAIF papers if you will send me your e-mail address or if I can post them at this forum. You can also go the NASAspaceflight.com forum and check out their “Advanced Concept” sub-forum and look for my “Star-Drive” posts with attachments in the Propellantless Field Propulsion and Application section starting on page 14.
http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/alt.php
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... ic=13020.0
TallDave:
"http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMJPC ... 6_4911.pdf
Hmmm.
Well, you know me, I'm always in favor of more studies."
See my reply on this Woodward Mach-5 and -6 MLTs report by the ARC Seibersdorf research group in Brian Wang's "Next Big Future" URL:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/mach-e ... march.html
You might also like to know that the lead author for this ARC/AIAA 2006 paper, Nembo Buldrini, is now working in his spare time on the M-E studies. Want to join us?