Mach Effect progress

[GIThruster]

No, I don't think Feynman ever said General Relativity is wrong, and that's what this paper is saying. If the paper is right, Einstein's Equivalence Principle EEP is wrong, General Relativity is wrong, and Woodward's Mach Effect theory is wrong.

Somehow, until I see a peer reviewed paper, think I'll side with Einstein.

[MSimon]

The Feynman Lectures on Physics (3 Volume Set)

Vol II Chap 28 is entitled Electromagnetic Mass as is sub heading 28-3.

[GIThruster]

I appreciate that and I've thought for a long time I need this in my library. Are you saying Feynman says here EEP is wrong?

[MSimon]

I appreciate that and I've thought for a long time I need this in my library. Are you saying Feynman says here EEP is wrong?

It has been a while since I read the chapter. I do recall that he said that it falls out of Maxwell's equations and that those are a simplified version of the quantum theory. Give me a day or so and I'll get back to you.

[DeltaV]

http://www.cvd-diamond.com/properties_en.htm

Dielectric Properties

CVD diamond exhibits remarkable dielectric properties including a low dielectric constant of 5.7, a loss tangent below 0.00005 at 145GHz and a high dielectric strength of 1 000 000 V/cm. In combination with the extremely high thermal conductivity, low thermal expansion coefficient and high mechanical strength CVD diamond is an ideal dielectric window material. In particular for high-power microwave tubes (Gyrotron) with power levels exceedings 1 MW edge cooled diamond windows have found tremendous interest.

Any nice properties for Mach-Woodward Effect devices?

[GIThruster]

The low k makes it less useful since you want high change in energy density, but the very low loss at high frequency certainly does open some possibilities. Trouble is really, how do you rectify any M-E you generate at that high a frequency? You have to have bulk acceleration and 145 Ghz is a couple orders magnitude above the ionic response ceiling of most materials, so I'm not thinking at the moment, how to make use of that high a frequency.

M-E scales with the cube of frequency, so you want to eventually operate as high as possible. Probably the upper limit of M-E thruster frequency will be in the low Ghz range. A single layer of PZT or PMN-PT nanocrystal will still respond enough to provide acceleration into that range, but working up at the millimeter wave band seems unlikely to me.

Who knows. There's more than one way to skin a cat and the future is rife with possibilities. There are probably hundreds of ways to use M-E that haven't been dreamed of yet. I'm just not dreaming up a way to operate them quite so high frequency.

[hanelyp]

For a mechanical driver, what's the upper frequency range for a quartz radio crystal? I think I've seen them into 100s of MHz.

[GIThruster]

I think quartz, sapphire and even barium titanate all get used as microwave resonators, but I don't think they go through a real bulk acceleration. All of these materials actually have several different kinds of resonances, the lattice, the mobile ions, the actual displacement from their piezo or electostrictive response. It's the last of these that gives serious displacement and its attendant accelerations and I'm pretty sure the phase angle of this is such that you're looking at low Ghz max for real displacements.

There are certainly resonators that operate in the millimeter wave range, but they don't generate bulk displacement, IIUC.

[MSimon]

For a mechanical driver, what's the upper frequency range for a quartz radio crystal? I think I've seen them into 100s of MHz.

Yes. But the crystals are small and the drive power is limited. Less than 1 mW. Maybe less than 100 uW. If the power is too high the crystals fracture. One of the reasons for limiting the power is that high power can shift the frequency so somewhat higher power (an order of magnitude or two) is possible where frequency stability is not too important. Still not enough.

[GIThruster]

The latest from Jim, shared just so folks understand the kinds of technical but not physics-oriented stuff he has to endure. Just IMHO, it's crazy past understanding that the world waits on emergent tech that would make all our lives so much better, based upon such trivial practicalities:



Gentlefolk,

As you know, the power circuits have been redesigned and filters and
matching parts have been under construction. Bruce shared a particularly
simple and elegant matcher design for the circuit that gets driven by
both 1W and 2W signals. And Paul, in the past week or so, has tweaked
the low pass filter parts for that circuit to improve the performance of
the circuit using Circuit Maker softward. Yours truly has been making
the parts -- which has taken quite a bit longer than expected. Partly,
the slow progress has been due to winding toroidal inductors and having
only limited time in the lab. Partly, it has been that some of the
components have changed since the first building. To give you a taste of
all that, I attach a PPT file with some of the design drawings and a few
pictures of the components.

On the next trip (in a little over a week) I'll be spending an extra day
(for some routine staging scans), so I'll have more time than usual. I
hope to get the rest of the stuff built and get it all running. In one
of those synchonicities that happen occasionally, the slow pace of
building has fit nicely with other developments. And steady progress,
though slow, has continued.

Trust all is well with you and yours,

Jim

[paulmarch]

As far as extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence, okay. But you haven't looked at any of the evidence and you don't intend to, just as you have no intention of reading any of the papers. So who did you think you were kidding?

Well I haven't stooped as low as casting aspersions on what you might or might not have done ... so before you turn nasty lets leave it at that shall we? Before I 'drop it' ans 'stop kidding you' consider this:

I have read some of Woodwards papers ... over 13 years ago IIRC. Now since you are so well schooled in this wonderful theory could you please cite me the exact paper, section and equation set that proves to you that conservation of momentum is not violated using this new theory of inertia?

I could follow your learned footsteps and would appreciate very much your advanced insight in these matters and willingness to lead all others into the light and beautiful future that awaits us with dawning of such fantastical technologies.

Now if we could respect WizWorm's wishes to take this discussion to the appropriate thread and stop pushing this stuff into where it shouldn't be?

The conservation data you seek is in Appendix-B of Woodward's 2004 "Flux Capacitors and the Origins of Inertia" ("Flux Capacitors and the Origin of Inertia," Foundations of Physics 34, 1475-1514 (2004)).

Supporting papers from Woodward are his 1997 "Twists of Fate" ( http://www.springerlink.com/content/911x602n2x6w3261/ ) and "The Technical End of Mach's Principle" published in 2003 in the book "Mach's Principle and the Origins of Inertia" edited by Sachs & Roy.

BTW, Woodward's derivations and logic may or may not be sufficient for you dependent on the amount of theoretical rigor YOU need for a proof, but in the end analysis, its is the body of verifying experimental data that will be the final judge on Woodward's M-E conjecture.

Best.

[GIThruster]

Paul, did Peter pull his web page down? I'm not finding it and I haven't been since my last 'puter died, so I have no link.

[paulmarch]

Paul, did Peter pull his web page down? I'm not finding it and I haven't been since my last 'puter died, so I have no link.

Ron:

http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/alt.php

Best

[BenTC]

http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/alt.php

Love the tag line: Tomorrows Momentum Today.

[ltgbrown]

GIThruster and Paul,

I have been thinking intently about this whole conservation of momentum thing when I thought up a analogy to try to understand what was going on.

Let's start with GIThruster's analogy of walking on the surface of the Earth. You said (I am going to do a lot of paraphrasing, so forgive me if I change the wording and in the process mess up your example) that as a person's foot pushes off the Earth, momentum is conserved because the person either makes the Earth spin faster or slower (depending on the direction the person is walking relative to the direction of rotation) directly proportional to how much momentum they pick up. When we watch the person walk along the street, conservation seems to be violated, because we don't see the street "changing momentum". But, if we zoom out and increase our detection capabilities, we would detect a change in the speed of rotation (and therefore momentum, albeit angular) of the Earth.

So, to put it in terms of ME. If we look at a ME thruster at work, relatively up close, it appears to violate conservation of momentum, because there appears to be no change in the momentum of the Earth, Moon, Sun, planets, and other associated mass within our solar system. But, if we could zoom out, REALLY OUT, and increased, REALLY INCREASED, our detection capabilities, we would be able to detect a change in the momentum of the rest of the universe. Here is where I think icarus has issues. Change of momentum of the rest of the universe (because in the person walking on Earth metaphor, the person is part of the "universe" called Earth, just as the ME thruster is part of the universe in reality.) Change relative to what? In the metaphor, it was easy (ier!), the change was in the speed of rotation.

I tried to figure out an easy answer for the ME thruster and the universe and fumbled my way along to a question. How could you describe how the momentum is transferred in a ME thruster? Well, how is it transferred in the person walking on the surface of Earth? Friction! If there was no friction between the person’s shoe and the surface of the Earth, the person would not be able to transfer momentum between them self and the Earth.

Back to reality and ME thruster. If one uses the concept of “the fabric of space and time”(ok, our time in reality was short lived), then we can look at the fabric as a surface to be traversed. Out away from objects (i.e. in outer space!) the fabric is flat, smooth, and nearly (as in so close, we have an extremely hard time measuring it) frictionless. Once you are moving along, you simply glide along with no friction to slow you down and the only way for you to change your momentum is to throw something away from you in the opposite direction of where you want to go (i.e. thrusters using propellant!). To get to this surface, you have to “climb” out of a depression in the fabric caused by the mass of the object you are on. So, we throw a whole lot of stuff really hard in the direction of the bottom of the depression and move up out of the depression. The more massive the object, the harder we have to throw more mass, because the depression is deeper with steeper sides. We are unable to push, pull, or grab a hold of the fabric of space and time. We are stuck using a Newtonian solution.

My ahh ha was thinking of the ME thruster as our “shoe with friction” to walk on “the fabric of space and time”. As we “walk on the fabric”, our “shoe” pushes off on it. Just as when we looked at just the person walking on the street, it appeared momentum was not conserved, it appears that momentum is not conserved when we look at an ME thruster in the lab (or on my spaceship parked in the backyard!). We have to look at everything when looking at a ME thruster, because everything, in the entire universe, is connected (through a gravinertial field?). So where does the momentum come from? Not sure, but perhaps someone else can continue the analogy and provide an answer. I want to say something like: the momentum comes from a change in the momentum of the universe from one point in time to the next. Just as someone looking at the person walking on the surface of the Earth is sort looking at something in two dimensions, they can’t see the change in the third dimension (i.e rotation in a third dimension of a seemingly two dimensional surface), we are looking at things in three dimensions and cannot picture the change in the fourth. (Thus today’s momentum from tomorrow?)

Continue for a little while longer with the “shoe on the fabric of space” analogy. The stronger our ME thruster, the more “friction” it has between it and the fabric. The more momentum we can transfer between us and the “rest of the universe”. The more friction, the steeper the side of the well we can climb. The quicker we can accelerate once we are out of the well. So, your discussions about thrust rating is equivalent to friction coefficients.

Well, that about ends my ah ha. I hope you enjoyed the read. If not, sorry to have wasted so much of your time!