Pretty unbelieveable...

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Post by paulmarch »

“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?
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

MSimon wrote:
kmkramer wrote:This place has some interesting people reading it!

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.)
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.

etc.


I thought you weren't interested in this stuff ? In any case, if you go to the James Woodward website, you can probably find what you're looking for. Back when I was looking into this stuff diligently, I found almost all the theory, graphs, and pictures that I wanted.

http://www.woodwardeffect.org/




David

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Paul,

Have you considered a "spring"/laser interferometer set up to measure forces? That should keep your detector system away from the "noise" generators. If you use a dual beam set up with a 1/4 wave delay in 1 beam you get the equivalent of a "massless" optical encoder capable of resolving motions on the order of 150 angstroms. Better resolutions with higher frequency lasers (Blue - UV vs HeNe).

In addition - with the right photo detectors you should be able to see motion into the 200 MHz range without too much difficulty. For small amplitudes (i.e. movements on the order of 15 to 150 angstroms) an analog output could be used with the appropriate corrections.

I think using a piezo force sensor for anything other than calibration runs is problematic. Instead of a brand new experiment I think going for a more reliable detector (given the set up) is in order. Of course if you can do that and build your next step up machine all the better.
Last edited by MSimon on Wed Sep 09, 2009 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Skipjack wrote:Hey Dave, you and me actually agree on something for a change. Miracles do happen, LOL.
I would really love them to be right though. That would be a gamechanger. I just hope to see something soon. I am terribly impatient.

I actually don't remeber what it is we disagree on. Probably politics or something. Ah well, perhaps one of us will get smarter and change his mind!

:)


On the other hand, you might be referring to TallDave. I've only had two disagreements with him. (Poor Man's Polywell and Birtherism) Other than that, I generally agree with pretty much everything TallDave writes, so either way it sorta works out the same.


In any case, We also agree on researching the Polywell Fusion thing.


David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

MSimon wrote:Paul,

Have you considered a "spring"/laser interferometer set up to measure forces? That should keep your detector system away from the "noise" generators. If you use a dual beam set up with a 1/4 wave delay in 1 beam you get the equivalent of a "massless" optical encoder capable of resolving motions on the order of 150 angstroms. Better resolutions with higher frequency lasers.

I think using a piezo force sensor for anything other than calibration runs is problematic.

Image

Again with the interest ! Back when *I* tried to bring the subject up, did you want to talk about it ? Noooo..... you had to wait until someone IMPORTANT starts talking about it, and NOW you are interested !



:)

David

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

R. Dave,

My interests vary with time according to an undetermined function. And I started looking into this before Paul joined the thread.

One of the things that changed my attitude was the Feynman quantum electrodynamics videos. Something I had never looked very hard at before.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

MSimon wrote:R. Dave,

My interests vary with time according to an undetermined function. And I started looking into this before Paul joined the thread.

One of the things that changed my attitude was the Feynman quantum electrodynamics videos. Something I had never looked very hard at before.
Feynman was cool. I've read quite a bit about him. He was *MY* kind of scientist. Quirky and irreverent, loves humor and practical jokes, strippers and bongo drums.

Bill Beaty at http://amasci.com has a lot of stuff about Feynman. (And a lot of stuff about all sorts of weird and quirky science stuff.

In any case, i'm just messin wit chu. :)


David

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

Post by paulmarch »

MSimon wrote:Paul,

Have you considered a "spring"/laser interferometer set up to measure forces? That should keep your detector system away from the "noise" generators. If you use a dual beam set up with a 1/4 wave delay in 1 beam you get the equivalent of a "massless" optical encoder capable of resolving motions on the order of 150 angstroms. Better resolutions with higher frequency lasers (Blue - UV vs HeNe).

In addition - with the right photo detectors you should be able to see motion into the 200 MHz range without too much difficulty. For small amplitudes (i.e. movements on the order of 15 to 150 angstroms) an analog output could be used with the appropriate corrections.

I think using a piezo force sensor for anything other than calibration runs is problematic. Instead of a brand new experiment I think going for a more reliable detector (given the set up) is in order. Of course if you can do that and build your next step up machine all the better.
MSimon:

No I haven't, but from your description of the spring/laser interferometer, it appears enticing if I can afford it. I'll have to look into sources for same and see if it fits within my current lunch money cash, ummm, R&D budget. :)
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

ravingdave wrote:
MSimon wrote:R. Dave,

My interests vary with time according to an undetermined function. And I started looking into this before Paul joined the thread.

One of the things that changed my attitude was the Feynman quantum electrodynamics videos. Something I had never looked very hard at before.
Feynman was cool. I've read quite a bit about him. He was *MY* kind of scientist. Quirky and irreverent, loves humor and practical jokes, strippers and bongo drums.

Bill Beaty at http://amasci.com has a lot of stuff about Feynman. (And a lot of stuff about all sorts of weird and quirky science stuff.

In any case, i'm just messin wit chu. :)

David
Yeah. I know.

But it is true.

Until I started watching Feynman on quantum electrodynamics I never understood how truly strange the universe is.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

paulmarch wrote:
MSimon wrote:Paul,

Have you considered a "spring"/laser interferometer set up to measure forces? That should keep your detector system away from the "noise" generators. If you use a dual beam set up with a 1/4 wave delay in 1 beam you get the equivalent of a "massless" optical encoder capable of resolving motions on the order of 150 angstroms. Better resolutions with higher frequency lasers (Blue - UV vs HeNe).

In addition - with the right photo detectors you should be able to see motion into the 200 MHz range without too much difficulty. For small amplitudes (i.e. movements on the order of 15 to 150 angstroms) an analog output could be used with the appropriate corrections.

I think using a piezo force sensor for anything other than calibration runs is problematic. Instead of a brand new experiment I think going for a more reliable detector (given the set up) is in order. Of course if you can do that and build your next step up machine all the better.
MSimon:

No I haven't, but from your description of the spring/laser interferometer, it appears enticing if I can afford it. I'll have to look into sources for same and see if it fits within my current lunch money cash, ummm, R&D budget. :)
Paul,

There is an outfit called Sonoscan that is quite adept in that area. I did some work for them about 20 or so years back. We were using such a set up to measure the motion of ultrasonic transducers.

http://www.sonoscan.com/

They might be able to give you some direction. There may be off the shelf stuff available to do what was then a custom design.

The head guy there is Dr. Lawrence Kessler. Tell him I sent you.

This is a good page to get a feel for what they can do and describes Larry's work:

http://www.sonoscan.com/leadership/leadership.html

Send me an e-mail if you want more information. My addy is on the sidebar at:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Post by djolds1 »

MSimon wrote:One of the things that changed my attitude was the Feynman quantum electrodynamics videos. Something I had never looked very hard at before.
These?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr8sVailoLw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHx00XG6-jU
Vae Victis

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

djolds1 wrote:
MSimon wrote:One of the things that changed my attitude was the Feynman quantum electrodynamics videos. Something I had never looked very hard at before.
These?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr8sVailoLw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHx00XG6-jU
These:

http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

ravingdave, I meant TallDave ;)
We had a rather long discussion about politics recently... until my wife insisted that I let it go. She is worried about my heart ;)
Anyway, I guess when it comes to physics and science, it is easier for TallDave and me to agree on something.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Skipjack wrote:ravingdave, I meant TallDave ;)
We had a rather long discussion about politics recently... until my wife insisted that I let it go. She is worried about my heart ;)
Anyway, I guess when it comes to physics and science, it is easier for TallDave and me to agree on something.
Many more observations is one reason. Turing the observations into usable objects is another.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Post by hanelyp »

ravingdave wrote:If you follow the physics it doesn't violate any rules or laws. The theory is entirely dependent on Mach's theory of inertia. If Mach was correct, then this device ought to work. As I mentioned earlier, John G. Cramer was hired by Nasa to investigate the "Mach effect." However, the experiment appears to have been a failure due to technical difficulties.
As I understand it, a M/E thruster is supposed to use the rest of the universe as reaction mass. Given a black box containing a working thruster, how would you experimentally demonstrate that the device is conserving momentum when the 'inertial' observer is being pushed on?

Post Reply