Talk-Polywell.org

According to Paulmarch last reply to me this is exactly what he is implying.
This is why I dropped the argument and said that I will wait to see if any more real data comes out.

When you start to consider the possibility of moving amounts of Energy-Entropy through time there is really little that you cannot theorize of

Quite so. I just wanted to clarify this, because at that point we have to let the experiment get to an end-point so we can then re-examine such a claim. There is nothing in conventional physics that allows us 'access' to the means to assess this claim, so it'd have to be one demonstrated in practice such that no other explanation is reasonable.

Unfortunately, I cannot hold much enthusiasm for it because I do not think it is a well-founded hypothesis. There is nothing in need of 'explanation' by it. But if others think it is a viable hypothesis and perform an experiment that begs such a conclusion, then it is for them to present it.

Chris:

"But if others think it (The M-E Conjecture) is a viable hypothesis and perform an experiment that begs such a conclusion, then it is for them to present it."

Quite true! And that is exactly what Woodward, Brito, Mahood, White and myself have been trying to do over the last twenty years, but obvioulsy NOT to everyone's satisfaction. So we continue to refine our experimental setups so as to answer the critic's M-E conjecture concerns such as Chris' request for a closed system test where the M-E thruster's power requirments are supplied via a local to the M-E thruster's frame of reference battery pack.

BTW, I need to point out here that Hector Brito's battery powered MLT like devices, which were completely self contained, have also observed generated vxB forces on the order of tens of micro-Newtons where none should have been observed if there wasn't something real to this phenomenon.

And also don't forget that Woodward's ARC-Lite Torque Pendulum's power feeds are brought through liquid metal contacts that can NOT transmit mechanical torques or linear forces. So in effect Woodward's ARC-Lite experiments are already running as an isolated force system. But I understand that one could point to electrical and/or magnetic fields "MIGHT" be bridging the liquid metal gaps in Jim's thrust system, so I point you back to Brito's battery powered experimental results, and I promise you that my current MLT-2011 ~2.0 MHz experiment will be completely self-contained, being powered by a 33V, 1.0 Amp-hr Li-Poly battery pack that should give it approximately a total 20 minute runtime between charges. I hope to have that experiment on a thrust stand by the end of this year.

PS: Yes, the M-E does allow and in fact requires momentum and energy flows going both forwards and backwards through time, becuase it IS posited as a radiation reaction force. It's weird, but so is gravity and inertia, so one just has to deal with this weirdness if we are to make any progress beyond the rocket paradigm...

See:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/people/dis ... m-woodward
http://physics.fullerton.edu/component/ ... f-woodward

and then go to:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/gene ... /index.htm

_________________
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

Thanks, Paul. I have not got a syllable of issue with anyone that is prepared to put their experimental time into their own ideas, and have previously commented in at least one other thread that I am impressed for this one to be followed through. Not my cup-of-tea, as you know, but I will pick up on your links as you've provided them and watch out for any progress.

As Giorgio and I have commented, please don't be too offended if we feel unable to accept your hypothesised entropy-through-time at this stage. You've many pieces of conventional physics you'll need to overturn along this route! I commend anyone who seriously attempts such a journey - someone's got to pick the crazy routes else we'd never find out where they might take us.

Chris:

"You've many pieces of conventional physics you'll need to overturn along this route!"

In Woodward's opinion, not really, since most of the M-E if not all of it is based on the already vetted and existing physics of SRT, GRT and Lorentz invariance, i.e. "No New Physics! is Woodward's mantra. The only "new" thing brought to the theoretical table is formally combining SRT & GRT with Mach's Principle. A feat that Einstein tried to do but failed at, but Dennis Sciama almost managed to do in the 1950s and 60s, and Woodward may have done. We will let the data have the last word...

Thanks BTW for your kind thoughts.

Best,

_________________
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

I like this attitude.
This is the correct way to make scientific research.
I'll be eagerly waiting the result of the experiment, be it positive or negative.

Chris, if you'll read the third link Paul just gave you, the one on radiation reaction; you'll see that the route through time is in Wheeler-Feynman's "absorber" theory of radiation reaction.

Paul, the link at the bottom of that page to transient mass fluctuations is broken. Do you have a working one?

_________________
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Ron:

Try this url first for where to start;

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/index.htm

then:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/gene ... /index.htm

BTW, in regards to passing energy and momentum bidirectinonally through space AND time, Einstein's GRT requires this kind of 4-D analysis for any complete accounting of the situation. The mainstream physics community IMO, has yet comes to grips with this reality, and since GRT continues to pass all the experimental tests thrown its way, ref Gravity Probe-B and a host of other tests of same, we as a community had better start observing these GRT realities that have been staring at us now for close to a century.

Best,

_________________
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

Paul, the problems in creating a device generating milli-newtons or even a full newton of force is more on the order of money (the materials to built it wold cost too much) or of pure engineering problems (meaning even with a big budget you would still take a lot of time to discover how to create a full newton device)?

I'll look forward to that.

What was the expected force output on this machine? Tens of millinewtons? Sorry, I think you mentioned this before but I couldn't find it.

I'm still somewhat skeptical, but it sounds like you're getting into ranges where experimental error becomes a less likely explanation. I guess widespread replication would be next...

_________________
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

AcesHigh & TallDave:

I've already made and tested two MLT test articles, (the MLT-2004 and the Mach-2MHz), that appeared to generate a phased reversed forward and reversed (+/-) 1.0-to-5.0 milli-Newton thrust signatures as reported in my and Andrew Palfreyman's STAIF-2006 report. However nobody wanted to believe the reported data due what they considered experimental shortcomings such as insufficient EMI proofing of the thrust measurement system in the first MLT-2004 experiment, not running the test articles in a hard vacuum for both tests that would have killed ALL possibilities of ion wind contamination of the results, and not running the test articles with self-contained RF power source that would make absolutely sure that the thrust signatures were not coming from a back reaction force developed through the power leads going to the laboratory frame’s RF power supplies. My second test article did have a Faraday shield around it and vastly improved EMI proofing of the load cell electronics used to detect the forces. And the Faraday shield would have killed off any ionic wind generated by the Mach-2MHz test article, but that wasn’t good enough for the doubters. It also didn't matter to them that the peak voltages for the first test article was only 630V-p, while the second test article that was in the Faraday shield had voltages of only 150V-p and NOT the 10 kV to 20 kV required to generated sufficient ionic wind to account for the observed thrust signatures. And I’m sure I will receive further flack for not standing on my head and rubbing my stomach, in the counterclockwise direction, (I think I’m smiling ), while performing the next set of self contained MLT-2011 tests, but I’ll do the best I can with the resources available to me.

As to the predicted thrust levels for the new 2.0 MHz MLT-2011 test series, it is in the 1-to-20 milli-Newton range dependent on how the new N4700 dielectric caps (e-r= ~1,250) used in this new test article performs. As to getting up to a Newton of thrust, it will take finding caps that can operate at higher operating frequencies with lower internal losses while still generating the required bulk acceleration needed as part of the requirements to generate the M-E delta mass signature. (The other part is the time rate of change of power going through the caps.) Higher thrusts also means getting higher push/pull force rectification input power into the MLT system that is also phased matched with the delta mass signature. That is “just” engineering time with sufficient test equipment that will provide the resolution needed to see and control what is going on. I.e., it’s just $$$ effort once we verify the existence of the M-E delta mass signatures, which IMO was already accomplished by Woodward in his rotary-cap test series during the 2008 to 2009 time frame at Duncan Cumming’s request. (Dr. Coming is a PhD EE on Woodward’s M-E e-mail distribution.)

Best,

_________________
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

Paul, I'd hate to leave people with the impression that going self-contained is the only way to prove you don't have a back reaction through the power system. It's important to note that there are several very simple tests that can demonstrate this in systems like Jim's, such as use of a dummy load test. There are other reasons to do self-contained experiments than eliminating the back reaction possibility. It is for example, much more expensive to build and operate test equipment like the ARC Lite, than it is to use a load cell or simple pendulum. I personally am happy to see both approaches in use.

I would also add that when I first asked those in the Woodward group what they would spend finances on if they had them to push the work forward, I received three replies that still all hold true today. Paul said he'd like better, much more expensive power systems. There's still call for this as mentioned just a few days ago. Andrew Palfreyman said he'd like to see better dielectrics. There are lots to choose from and some of them have astonishingly higher critical values than the stuff in current use. Some of these are however extremely expensive. Jim Woodward said he'd like to see the money put to pay the proper people and obviously, this is still the prime trouble with the work--no one is being paid. As much as Paul wants to work on the MLT, it's put aside for five months because he currently has a paying gig at NASA. If another paying job comes by in five months, I'm sure Paul will do what's best for his family and take it. And IMHO, this is the prime trouble that has plagued the work thus far--lack of resources with which to pay the best people.

With real funding you can have an excellent vacuum chamber--the thing that Paul was missing all those years ago. You can have quality measurement apparatus, much more advanced engineering of the devices, better materials, etc. but the most important is you can put the proper people to work.

_________________
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. Hopefully the next round or two convince enough people that some science labs start replicating your results. It doesn't sound like it's outside the engineering capabilities of a modest college physics lab, assuming there's no "secret sauce" in your designs that you're keeping to yourself for commercial reasons.

BTW, would you agree with the statement that a hypothetical M-E flywheel generator is 2L compliant because it increases the entropy of the causally connected universe by lowering its temp? I've been trying to explain it that way to people; hopefully I didn't misunderstand anything too badly there.

So, can anyone get on this mailing list, or only PhDs? Alas, I only have a Master's.

_________________
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

TallDave:

Anyone interested in the M-E can be on Woodward's e-mail list by just asking Woodward to be put on it. And your masters may beat my BSEE with minors in math and physics dependent on what subject matter covered for your degree, but I've spent the last 13 years hammering this topic to the point I could probably get a masters and a PhD out of the deal if I were so inclined, which I'm not at the moment. I simply want to build starships, and this is where it’s at, so here I am.

"BTW, would you agree with the statement that a hypothetical M-E flywheel generator is 2L compliant because it increases the entropy of the causally connected universe by lowering its temp?"

It's a plausible way to describe the outcome of using an M-E generator, but it's not necessarily the correct explanation, for we have yet to deal with this 4D spacetime time “momenergy” transfers in a way that is understandable to all.

"It doesn't sound like it's outside the engineering capabilities of a modest college physics lab, assuming there's no "secret sauce" in your designs that you're keeping to yourself for commercial reasons."

The fabrication of M-E experiments and the execution of M-E tests could be done by proficient college juniors, seniors and graduate students under direction of a Professor like Jim Woodward, as Tom Mahood will attest to. The tricky part is to have at least one proficient SRT/GRT/experimentalist on hand to keep the less experienced folks going down the myriad number of blind alleys to nowhere that we have already traversed over the last 13 years for me and 25+ years for Woodward. So yes it’s possible, but be prepared to back up and punt on a number of occasions as you learn the M-E ropes. Hopefully this situation will improve as we get more resources to apply to this M-E onion, but we are still early in this process.

Best,

_________________
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

Ron:

Yes, the dummy test could be sufficient evidence that the back reaction is not coming from the lab mounted RF power supply, but only if the dummy test article replicates exactly the electrical and mechanical properties of the M-E test article without generating the observed thrust signature. So far I don’t remember Woodward doing this in a convincing way yet, or did I miss another meeting? IMO the PZT or MLT dummy test is just another supporting brick in the experimental wall making up the M-E, especially for folks who have followed all the other verification tests that Woodward, Mahood and I have pursued over the years. However it’s not going to be sufficient to others who have not followed this body of work, especially those familiar with rail gun technology where the back reaction forces are most definitely transferred back to its homopolar prime power source’s anchor points in a very big way.

Best,

_________________
Paul March
Friendswood, TX