Mach Effect Propulsion Research Update

[IntLibber]

I'd be concerned about:
- EMI between the driving signal and the sensors.
- The capacitor acting as an electrostatic speaker, and the sound waves coupling with the sensors.

Its in a vacuum, and the capacitors are in a faraday cage on the device. The team has been rather viciously triaging possible sources of false signals, noise, etc. and most recently eliminated a LOT of perceived signal in doing so. Theres a rather large group of folks from all over on woodwards email list contributing suggestions and ideas.

[Betruger]

One of you guys ought to let him know the second link in his paper is broken. On page 9 of the standalone PDF copy.

[Giorgio]

- The capacitor acting as an electrostatic speaker, and the sound waves coupling with the sensors.

That's quite an interesting point.
Do you have any idea about the order of magnitude of such a noise in the described experimental setup?

[MSimon]

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

I'd be concerned about:
- EMI between the driving signal and the sensors.
- The capacitor acting as an electrostatic speaker, and the sound waves coupling with the sensors.

Me too.

[kurt9]

Woodward, Tajmar, and Hauser all presented this morning at the conference.

[AcesHigh]

anyone with understanding of the Mach Effect cares to reply at this topic?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=259842

or at least, post here an explanation for this:

Of course not. Like I said, that's his argument.

The problem, apart from the fact that Woodward's calculation is Just Plain Wrong (it takes the same momentum to stop a the mass that it did to get it going in the first place) is that momentum is conserved locally as well as globally. I can't move the momentum to the "rest of the universe" without applying a force.

[Betruger]

Paul March is probably the best person to ask.

[AcesHigh]

Paul March is probably the best person to ask.

probably, how to contact him?

[Betruger]

This is his profile at NSF. I don't know his email address. If you register at NSF, there's a function ("email" under avatar on any forum page) to send him an email via private message, but I don't know if his NSF profile allows that.

Alternatively you could just ask the same question at one of the NSF Mach Effect threads with a link to that PF thread.

[TDPerk]

"I can't move the momentum to the "rest of the universe" without applying a force."

Frame dragging is the "force". A better and more interesting question is why doesn't the "effort" of dragging on the "frame" require energy?

Does anyone know if the Kev at PhysicsForum is the same "scientist" who at QandO.net was a noted AGW apologist?

[EricF]

Paul March is probably the best person to ask.

probably, how to contact him?

viewtopic.php?t=1517&start=75&postdays= ... highlight=

He might receive a PM notification via email if you PM his talk-polywell profile.

[EricF]

"I can't move the momentum to the "rest of the universe" without applying a force."

Frame dragging is the "force". A better and more interesting question is why doesn't the "effort" of dragging on the "frame" require energy?

Does anyone know if the Kev at PhysicsForum is the same "scientist" who at QandO.net was a noted AGW apologist?

The way I've been imagining it from the description of how it works is like a boat oar.

You get the forward forece while the oar is in the water and being pulled, or in the case of the ME thruster while the material is ionized. On the return trip it de-ionizes, much like the oar coming out of the water, so there is less resistance on the return stroke. At least thats how I think it is supposed to work in principle.

[TDPerk]

I understand the MLT works by having more drag in one direction than another. What I am wondering is why if there is ever "drag" associated with frame dragging, why it does not bring moving objects gradually to a halt?

Now if frame dragging is really just representable as a field of vectors describing the gravity well of an object, and inertia is a reaction to the deformation of that vector field brought about in the act of accelerating an object, then I can see how inertia would have object moving in a vacuum moving essentially forever without energy loss.

[EricF]

I understand the MLT works by having more drag in one direction than another. What I am wondering is why if there is ever "drag" associated with frame dragging, why it does not bring moving objects gradually to a halt?

Now if frame dragging is really just representable as a field of vectors describing the gravity well of an object, and inertia is a reaction to the deformation of that vector field brought about in the act of accelerating an object, then I can see how inertia would have object moving in a vacuum moving essentially forever without energy loss.

Hmm, thats a good question. I wonder if a dielectric with a constant current applied to displace the mass will eventually grind itself to a halt while moving through space.

[AcesHigh]

pardom my ignorance... but while such dragging might make a thruster based on the ME effect unfeasible, it would still prove Mach Effect itself, wouldnt it? Still material for a nobel prize, as far as I see.