Pretty unbelieveable...

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Scupperer wrote:[

Okay, let me see if I can break this down in terms of Newtonian physics.

F=m*a. If you alter m, then either the force or acceleration changes. If you alter m while applying an acceleration or deceleration (push/pull on the device), then you can change the acceleration if the force stays the same.

If you accelerate the device while the mass is decreasing, the acceleration increases, and if you decelerate while the mass is increasing, the acceleration also increases (or do I have this backwards?). Reverse it, if you want to slow down.

So it's a pumping action, and the direction of force is literally dictated by which way you push the device while altering its mass.

The magic seems to be in how the mass of the material changes?


My current understanding is that this aspect of the design equates mass and energy. When the Capacitor is charged, it contains more energy than when it is discharged. The energy gained is minuscule, but it is still a gain in energy.

While the capacitor is charged up, it is pushed in one direction. (by a piezeo transducer in one design) When the capacitor is discharged it is pulled in the opposite direction.

This results in pushing while the mass is heavier (i.e. the capacitor contains the charge energy) and pulling while the mass is lower. (The capacitor is discharged.)

Because the energy is so very small, the only way to achieve any noticeable effect at all is to do the pushing and pulling very rapidly. (Kilohertz to Megahertz)

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

paulmarch wrote:
I may be too close to the topic to be of much good to you but consider this. Given that a capacitor dielectric can vary its total mass cyclically over a period of time around an average value, and you can apply an external force to the dielectric so it pushes the dielectric when it is heavy and then pulls on it when it's light in the same direction, you create an unbalanced force in the direction of the pull light force. This is force rectification of a time varying mass. If you want to reverse this net unbalanced force due to the time varying mass, you simply reverse the push/pull order, so you push light and then pull heavy.

A thought just occurred to me and I was hoping you could clarify my understanding on it.


My understanding has the capacitor being pushed while charged, and pulled while discharged. (or vice versa) Is this the case, or is the capacitor in fact charged in the opposite direction?

Ordinarily when you feed an alternating current into a capacitor, the capacitor is charged alternately one way and then the other. Since the capacitor being charged in either direction will still constitute a higher energy state, if the capacitor is charged with an AC voltage as opposed to a varying DC voltage, wouldn't the effect null itself out ?


What i'm trying to say is: Do you charge the capacitor with an AC signal,

Image







or a Sinusoidal varying DC signal ?


Image

If i'm understanding the theory correctly, it ought to make a big difference.

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

Scupperer wrote:
paulmarch wrote:I may be too close to the topic to be of much good to you but consider this. Given that a capacitor dielectric can vary its total mass cyclically over a period of time around an average value, and you can apply an external force to the dielectric so it pushes the dielectric when it is heavy and then pulls on it when it's light in the same direction, you create an unbalanced force in the direction of the pull light force. This is force rectification of a time varying mass. If you want to reverse this net unbalanced force due to the time varying mass, you simply reverse the push/pull order, so you push light and then pull heavy.

Edit: The M-E drives push/pull off the mostly distant mass/energy in the universe via the cosmological gravity/inertia or gravinertia (G/I) field that gives rise to Newtonian inertia per Mach's principle. As to the origins of the momentum and energy acquired by the M-E Drive, it comes from the kinetic energy of the various parts of the universe that create this G/I field, which IMO reduces the average temperature of the univers by a very, very small percentage required to balance the energy books. However, since the 5% of the mass/energy that is standard mass in the universe is composed of over 1x10^80 atoms and ions, wiggling a block of dielectric mass that only contains at most ~1x10^26 ions is no big deal...
Okay, let me see if I can break this down in terms of Newtonian physics.

F=m*a. If you alter m, then either the force or acceleration changes. If you alter m while applying an acceleration or deceleration (push/pull on the device), then you can change the acceleration if the force stays the same.

If you accelerate the device while the mass is decreasing, the acceleration increases, and if you decelerate while the mass is increasing, the acceleration also increases (or do I have this backwards?). Reverse it, if you want to slow down.

So it's a pumping action, and the direction of force is literally dictated by which way you push the device while altering its mass.

The magic seems to be in how the mass of the material changes?
“The magic seems to be in how the mass of the material changes?”

The magic you refer to is wrapped around the question of what is the origins of inertia and inertial mass, and can it be dynamically modified by applied E&M fields? In the GRT/Machian view, (QM also takes a different position on this question), the property we call inertial mass comes about from the interaction of the cosmological gravinertial (G/I) field with the atoms & ions of the local mass. If you can transiently shield this G/I field interaction between the G/I field and the local mass, the local mass’ inertial mass will decrease during the initial shielding process and then increase when being unshielded. This G/I field shielding effect can be induced by bulk accelerating the local mass relative to the distant stars while a local power supply is pumping power thru the mass as would be the case in a bulk accelerated capacitor being charged and discharged. The actual change in the E= m*c^2 energy in the cap during its charge and discharging process is FAR TOO SMALL to account for the M-E’s predicted delta mass ratios or those already measured. You could consider the bulk acceleration and cap power flux simply as the catalytic elements needed to shield the local mass from its G/I field, which is the source of inertial mass in the Machian viewpoint.

As to whether the ac signal used to excite the capacitor is referenced to ground in a +/- signal around zero volts, or is a varying dc signal matters not. It’s the change in cap energy state and how fast it changes when being multiplied by the bulk acceleration that drives the magnitude of the M-E’s mass/energy fluctuations.

Edit: There is one thing that does change when using a +/0/-/0/+ sine wave drive sginal verses a pulsating dc drive signal. That is the fact that the resulting power spectra going through the caps reduces down from two power pulses per cycle in the ac sine case, verse just one power pulse per cycle in the pulsating dc case. That will dictate whether one has to use a 2X frequency force rectification signal for a sine wave, verses a 1X frequency force rectifcation signal for the pulsating dc signal.
Last edited by paulmarch on Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

Scupperer
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Post by Scupperer »

paulmarch wrote:The magic you refer to is wrapped around the question of what is the origins of inertia and inertial mass, and can it be dynamically modified by applied E&M fields? In the GRT/Machian view, (QM also takes a different position on this question), the property we call inertial mass comes about from the interaction of the cosmological gravinertial (G/I) field with the atoms & ions of the local mass. If you can transiently shield this G/I field interaction between the G/I field and the local mass, the local mass’ inertial mass will decrease during the initial shielding process and then increase when being unshielded. This G/I field shielding effect can be induced by bulk accelerating the local mass relative to the distant stars while a local power supply is pumping power thru the mass as would be the case in a bulk accelerated capacitor being charged and discharged. The actual change in the E= m*c^2 energy in the cap during its charge and discharging process is FAR TOO SMALL to account for the M-E’s predicted delta mass ratios or those already measured. You could consider the bulk acceleration and cap power flux simply as the catalytic elements needed to shield the local mass from its G/I field, which is the source of inertial mass in the Machian viewpoint.
So it's an inertial dampening field? Unlike the sci-fi use of the term, however, it shields the mass from the universal gravity/inertia? Does this measure as a change in mass of the object? Or does it only appear in the delta-v?

Just curious, could this theory perhaps explain the inconsistencies in satellite and deep-space probe speeds from current gravitational theory? Perhaps while accelerating through planetary/solar magnetic fields?
Perrin Ehlinger

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

Scupperer wrote:
paulmarch wrote:The magic you refer to is wrapped around the question of what is the origins of inertia and inertial mass, and can it be dynamically modified by applied E&M fields? In the GRT/Machian view, (QM also takes a different position on this question), the property we call inertial mass comes about from the interaction of the cosmological gravinertial (G/I) field with the atoms & ions of the local mass. If you can transiently shield this G/I field interaction between the G/I field and the local mass, the local mass’ inertial mass will decrease during the initial shielding process and then increase when being unshielded. This G/I field shielding effect can be induced by bulk accelerating the local mass relative to the distant stars while a local power supply is pumping power thru the mass as would be the case in a bulk accelerated capacitor being charged and discharged. The actual change in the E= m*c^2 energy in the cap during its charge and discharging process is FAR TOO SMALL to account for the M-E’s predicted delta mass ratios or those already measured. You could consider the bulk acceleration and cap power flux simply as the catalytic elements needed to shield the local mass from its G/I field, which is the source of inertial mass in the Machian viewpoint.
So it's an inertial dampening field? Unlike the sci-fi use of the term, however, it shields the mass from the universal gravity/inertia? Does this measure as a change in mass of the object? Or does it only appear in the delta-v?

Just curious, could this theory perhaps explain the inconsistencies in satellite and deep-space probe speeds from current gravitational theory? Perhaps while accelerating through planetary/solar magnetic fields?
"So it's an inertial dampening field? Unlike the sci-fi use of the term, however, it shields the mass from the universal gravity/inertia?"

If you are referring to the M-E impulse term as a transient inertia damping field or spherical kink in the G/I field around the local mass that propagates away at the speed of c both forwards and backwards in time, my answer is yes it is. In other words, the G/I field IS the source of inertia. If you shield this field from the local mass, the magnitude of the local mass has to be reduced or cancelled totally if the shielding is large enough.

As to your second question, I don't have an answer for you other than it might be possible for the M-E to explain the observed satellite data if the proposed solar system E- and B-fields were aligned appropriately and if the satellites in question met the requirements of the M-E, which of course is TBD.
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

EricF
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Pell City, Alabama

Post by EricF »

If you are referring to the M-E impulse term as a transient inertia damping field or spherical kink in the G/I field around the local mass that propagates away at the speed of c both forwards and backwards in time, my answer is yes it is. In other words, the G/I field IS the source of inertia. If you shield this field from the local mass, the magnitude of the local mass has to be reduced or cancelled totally if the shielding is large enough.
Does this mean that whatever space craft is being propelled by the mach-thruster is not gaining mass the closer it approaches c, unlike conventional thrusters?

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

EricF wrote:
If you are referring to the M-E impulse term as a transient inertia damping field or spherical kink in the G/I field around the local mass that propagates away at the speed of c both forwards and backwards in time, my answer is yes it is. In other words, the G/I field IS the source of inertia. If you shield this field from the local mass, the magnitude of the local mass has to be reduced or cancelled totally if the shielding is large enough.
Does this mean that whatever space craft is being propelled by the mach-thruster is not gaining mass the closer it approaches c, unlike conventional thrusters?
Only if the entire vehicle was undergoing mass fluctuations. As currently built, these M-E drives only affect the mass density of the cap dielectrics in the drives themselves, while the rest of the vehicle would undergo the usual relativistic effects as the vehicle's velocity approached c. How you get around that probelm is to develop the M-E wormhole term into a working FTL drive.
Last edited by paulmarch on Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

Stoney3K
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:24 pm

Post by Stoney3K »

paulmarch wrote:You can reverse the MLT thrust vector by simply flipping the phases of the applied MLT cap E-field and force rectification B-field by 180 degrees. That E- and B-field phase flip reverses the thrust vector 180 degrees at a goodly percentage of the speed of light. If you want to read more, see my STAIF-2007 paper on the "WarpStar-I" MLT powered Moon ship.
Can you vary the phase in a continuous manner (so you can vary the thrust 360 degrees) or just in a 'forward/reverse' manner?

The first situation would make a very compact single-engine craft which is very maneuverable, the latter would result in bigger, more sluggish turning two-engine craft because you need to throttle the two engines independently to turn.
Because we can.

EricF
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Pell City, Alabama

Post by EricF »

Stoney3K wrote:
paulmarch wrote:You can reverse the MLT thrust vector by simply flipping the phases of the applied MLT cap E-field and force rectification B-field by 180 degrees. That E- and B-field phase flip reverses the thrust vector 180 degrees at a goodly percentage of the speed of light. If you want to read more, see my STAIF-2007 paper on the "WarpStar-I" MLT powered Moon ship.
Can you vary the phase in a continuous manner (so you can vary the thrust 360 degrees) or just in a 'forward/reverse' manner?

The first situation would make a very compact single-engine craft which is very maneuverable, the latter would result in bigger, more sluggish turning two-engine craft because you need to throttle the two engines independently to turn.
Even if the thruster itself could only work in a forwards/backwards mode, could you still mount it in a housing that could rotate on two axis to achieve the effect you describe?

Betruger
Posts: 2311
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

It looks like the Warpstar-1 MLTs are distributed in 4 triangular sets of 3, forming a triangular prism:
Image
And that each MLT tesseract can thrust in X, Y, or Z dimensions. So you would have full attitude and translation thrusting, in all 6 degrees of freedom.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

Does the effect only take place with varying mass? Or does any material with a localized, accellerated gain of energy count towards producing the effect?

For example an excited region of a solid staste laser material.

And please correct me if I mis-recall, the strength of the effect is proportional to the rate of change of the accelleration as opposed to the acceleration, such that the mass gain is only advantageous while the derivative of acceleration is positive? Or merely when the accelleration is postive. Or as long as the displacement is in one direction while the mass is present?
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

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

Post by djolds1 »

paulmarch wrote:Only if the entire vehicle was undergoing mass fluctuations. As currently built, these M-E drives only affect the mass density of the cap dielectrics in the drives themselves, while the rest of the vehicle would undergo the usual relativistic effects as the vehicle's velocity approached c. How you gat around that probelm is to develop the M-E wormhole term into a working FTL drive.
If your collegue Mr. Palfreyman was correct in his STAIF 2006 interview, negative mass is not achieved, but instead the decreasing mass signal slides toward zero on an asymptotic curve. Has this suspicion/critique of his been addressed?
Vae Victis

Skipjack
Posts: 6106
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

If your collegue Mr. Palfreyman was correct in his STAIF 2006 interview, negative mass is not achieved, but instead the decreasing mass signal slides toward zero on an asymptotic curve. Has this suspicion/critique of his been addressed?
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. After all the nice gentleman was coauthoring the original paper, right?

Also, if negative mass can not be achieved, would the device still be useful?

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

Post by djolds1 »

Skipjack wrote:Also, if negative mass can not be achieved, would the device still be useful?
I think "standard" Mach-Lorentz Thrusters should be doable. FTL applications that require negative mass/energy however?
Vae Victis

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

EricF wrote:
Stoney3K wrote:
paulmarch wrote:You can reverse the MLT thrust vector by simply flipping the phases of the applied MLT cap E-field and force rectification B-field by 180 degrees. That E- and B-field phase flip reverses the thrust vector 180 degrees at a goodly percentage of the speed of light. If you want to read more, see my STAIF-2007 paper on the "WarpStar-I" MLT powered Moon ship.
Can you vary the phase in a continuous manner (so you can vary the thrust 360 degrees) or just in a 'forward/reverse' manner?

The first situation would make a very compact single-engine craft which is very maneuverable, the latter would result in bigger, more sluggish turning two-engine craft because you need to throttle the two engines independently to turn.
Even if the thruster itself could only work in a forwards/backwards mode, could you still mount it in a housing that could rotate on two axis to achieve the effect you describe?
The MLT thrust varies with the sine function of the angle between the E-field and the B-field in the cap dielectric, so one can vary the MLT's thrust smoothly between zero thrust to say max +X axis thrust at 90 deg, back to zero thrust at 180 degrees, then on to a peak -X thrust at 270 degrees, and then back down to zero at 360/0 degrees. How smooth this thrust control is depends on the granularity of your phase control system.
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

Post Reply