Per the Wikipedia article Talldave linked to:
"In physics, action at a distance is the interaction of two objects which are separated in space with no known mediator of the interaction. This term was used most often with early theories of gravity and electromagnetism to describe how an object could "know" the mass (in the case of gravity) or charge (in electromagnetism) of another distant object."
I note this does not require notable force for there to be action.
Also, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooky_act ... a_distance
"A 2008 quantum physics experiment performed in Geneva, Switzerland has determined that the "speed" of the quantum non-local connection (what Einstein called spooky action at a distance) has a minimum lower bound of 10,000 times the speed of light. [13] However, modern quantum physics cannot expect to determine the maximum given that we do not know the sufficient causal condition of the system we are proposing."
c*10^4 That's fast.
The fact it exists at all is way weirder than "the Woodward effect".
Mach Effect Propulsion Research Update
No he wasn't.chrismb wrote:My saying "argument" is intended as a parody on the Monty Python sketch where the protagonist is simply contradicted all the time by the other person who claims to be "arguing" rationally.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
That seems sound enough. I'm still leaning toward experimental error until we get lots more replication, but as with Tajmar's results there is definitely something to look into here.The graph clearly eliminates the possibility of noise being the source of the signal, it might be experimental error--they may not be measuring what they think they are measuring. The description of the signal being dependent on the time use history of the capacitors argues for it being the effect they intend to measure, if their conception of the degradation of the capacitors is correct. The system is operating in a vacuum, and if I recall it is built to operate against a torsion pendulum.
The opportunities for the mirror on the outside of the case to be moved by other than the effect they are trying to measure are slight.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
I am saying that it is money well spent. If it works, it is great engineering, if it does not work it is good science as we then have at least ruled out one of I think 4 plausible explanation for inertia that are currently still on the table. Ruling out one of them at least makes for a good science project and that should be worth something as well.
Looks like Woodward's paper for this year's SPESIF is up. Tajmar's might be as well...
This one was submitted last November, so it might not be news to everyone.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.1033
This one was submitted last November, so it might not be news to everyone.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.1033
Last edited by Betruger on Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Do you mean for public download? Where? All I've found is the abstract (which mentions a positive result).Betruger wrote:Looks like Woodward's paper for this year's SPESIF is up.
Owing to the variation in the results of several experiments designed to produce thrust with devices employing Mach effects, it was decided to design an experiment with the simple purpose of determining whether or not Mach effects actually exist, and if they can be produced when the “bulk” acceleration and internal energy changes required to produce them are separately supplied. In the experiment arrays of eight 500 pf high voltage capacitors are mounted on the end of a rotor and spun to and from speeds of about 60 Hz (3600 rpm) while they are excited with a 40 KHz voltage signal with amplitudes up to 6 KV. The capacitors are sandwiched between two accelerometers and any Mach effect mass fluctuation is detected as a weight fluctuation that produces signals in the accelerometers that are antiphase. Those signals are subtracted with a differential instrumentation amplifier that suppresses other signals as common mode noise. Signals with the properties sought have been found and recorded with video equipment. They suggest that Mach effects are real, and that the bulk accelerations and internal energy changes that produce them can in fact be separately supplied. ©2010 American Institute of Physics
The article's hosted on scitation.aip.org, but some of the major documentation pieces are on the web for free.
THE DEVICE IN OPERATION
There's more details of course, but I don't know if I'm already reproducing more of the article than is allowed. If the above's excessive, mods are welcome to edit/delete.
The math in the paper takes just 1.5 pages and has just 4 equations or so. Someone wanting to falsify ME might have everything needed on that page and a half.
THE DEVICE IN OPERATION
CAPACITOR VOLTAGE SCALINGThe first part shows a typical run of the actual physical apparatus. The second part shows the responses of the instrumentation to a typical
run.
This link is broken. I might have this video saved somewhere..This video shows three runs of the device taken in succession with the capacitor voltage set first at 6 KV (as can be ascertained from the phase reference trace of the capacitor voltage knowing that the scale is 2 KV/div). The second and third runs are at 4 KV and 2 KV respectively.
There's more details of course, but I don't know if I'm already reproducing more of the article than is allowed. If the above's excessive, mods are welcome to edit/delete.
The math in the paper takes just 1.5 pages and has just 4 equations or so. Someone wanting to falsify ME might have everything needed on that page and a half.
In my view, the description of the apparatus shows a purpose built component is all but mandatory for reasonable thrust levels.
Consider a MEMS device, rectangular planar in the x & y axis. It contains drive circuitry with respect to the capacitor charge/discharge cycle. Along the edges of the device parallel to the x axis, are bars of piezo material, driven at the freq of interest and cocyclical such that one is pushing when one is pulling, and vice versa. The outer edges of the piezo bars are held in frame against which they bear, and which communicates thrust to the remainder of the system.
Manifold planar capacitors project from the surface of the MEMS device, they are arrayed up and down from the MEMS surfaces which are the top and bottom of the device, and which surfaces are coplanar to the x and y axis. The capacitors them selves are coplanar tot he plane of the x and z axis. They appear as if a shelf with many shelves back-to-back had fallen to bear on one set of shelf edges--of course the shelves are free to oscillate as the piezos drive into and away from the device edges.
In cross section with - to the left and +y to the right, as if cut by the plane of the y and z axis.
P = Piezo
S = Cap drive containing substrate
C = Cap
F = Frame
Of course if your font is much different from mine, this will make less sense than the description...
Consider a MEMS device, rectangular planar in the x & y axis. It contains drive circuitry with respect to the capacitor charge/discharge cycle. Along the edges of the device parallel to the x axis, are bars of piezo material, driven at the freq of interest and cocyclical such that one is pushing when one is pulling, and vice versa. The outer edges of the piezo bars are held in frame against which they bear, and which communicates thrust to the remainder of the system.
Manifold planar capacitors project from the surface of the MEMS device, they are arrayed up and down from the MEMS surfaces which are the top and bottom of the device, and which surfaces are coplanar to the x and y axis. The capacitors them selves are coplanar tot he plane of the x and z axis. They appear as if a shelf with many shelves back-to-back had fallen to bear on one set of shelf edges--of course the shelves are free to oscillate as the piezos drive into and away from the device edges.
In cross section with - to the left and +y to the right, as if cut by the plane of the y and z axis.
P = Piezo
S = Cap drive containing substrate
C = Cap
F = Frame
Code: Select all
C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C
FPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSPF --> Thrust
C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
I'd be concerned about:Owing to the variation in the results of several experiments designed to produce thrust with devices employing Mach effects, it was decided to design an experiment with the simple purpose of determining whether or not Mach effects actually exist, and if they can be produced when the “bulk” acceleration and internal energy changes required to produce them are separately supplied. In the experiment arrays of eight 500 pf high voltage capacitors are mounted on the end of a rotor and spun to and from speeds of about 60 Hz (3600 rpm) while they are excited with a 40 KHz voltage signal with amplitudes up to 6 KV. The capacitors are sandwiched between two accelerometers and any Mach effect mass fluctuation is detected as a weight fluctuation that produces signals in the accelerometers that are antiphase. Those signals are subtracted with a differential instrumentation amplifier that suppresses other signals as common mode noise. Signals with the properties sought have been found and recorded with video equipment. They suggest that Mach effects are real, and that the bulk accelerations and internal energy changes that produce them can in fact be separately supplied. ©2010 American Institute of Physics
- EMI between the driving signal and the sensors.
- The capacitor acting as an electrostatic speaker, and the sound waves coupling with the sensors.