Kindly provided at:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/mach-e ... pdate.html
I wonder whether keeping the barium titanate caps deeply cold would help to preserve their function during operation.
Mach Effect Propulsion Research Update
This is so awesome I could cry.
'Course I've felt that way since I was telling my colleagues about it (boring them with it?) ten years ago.
With a tenfold increase in mass figure of merit, and an increase in longevity by 6 orders of magnitude, these are good for satellite pointing and station keeping, correct?
It really seems like they need a budget that permits materials science specialists to get them far better Cap materials.
Gentleman, what can be done?
'Course I've felt that way since I was telling my colleagues about it (boring them with it?) ten years ago.
With a tenfold increase in mass figure of merit, and an increase in longevity by 6 orders of magnitude, these are good for satellite pointing and station keeping, correct?
It really seems like they need a budget that permits materials science specialists to get them far better Cap materials.
Gentleman, what can be done?
Last edited by TDPerk on Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
Has anyone proposed the vague outlines of a theory connecting the Mach Effect and Tajmar's superconductor and/or helium gravity modification effect (I wish he would do a test of the effect with JUST helium and NO niobium, so we could get a better idea of which material is causing his effect)? Would the two effects be mutually exclusive (if one is right, the other is wrong), or could they both be reflecting the same underlying physics? Does Heim theory explain both (some have used Heim to explain the Tajmar effect)?
So, is that diagram in that link the outright definition of this "Mach effect"?
I mean, it is self-evident that the two bodies are going to simply move relative to their CoM, and that the CoM has no "net motion" whatsoever. And unless there is a force in the inertial frame of the CoM then that system is going nowhere.
So if they are then, for example, rotated 180 after being pulled together then either the CoM stays exactly where it is, or you have to push the CoM along to change its position.
What on earth is this cr*p??
I mean, if "net motion" is an "average position" independent of mass then does that mean if I jump off the earth's surface at 5m/s lanuch speed that I have just generated a "net motion" of [1/2].(mass[earth]).[2.5]^2, and thus a shed load of kinetic energy out of me just jumping up???
Look at it this way; this scenario already happens where the bottom of your car's tyres moves towards the centre of your hubs when they are compressed when in contact with the road surface, yet move outwards again when they are at the top. But strange as it may seem despite the obvious evidence of the Mach thruster your car doesn't float off the road surface!!
I mean, it is self-evident that the two bodies are going to simply move relative to their CoM, and that the CoM has no "net motion" whatsoever. And unless there is a force in the inertial frame of the CoM then that system is going nowhere.
So if they are then, for example, rotated 180 after being pulled together then either the CoM stays exactly where it is, or you have to push the CoM along to change its position.
What on earth is this cr*p??
I mean, if "net motion" is an "average position" independent of mass then does that mean if I jump off the earth's surface at 5m/s lanuch speed that I have just generated a "net motion" of [1/2].(mass[earth]).[2.5]^2, and thus a shed load of kinetic energy out of me just jumping up???
Look at it this way; this scenario already happens where the bottom of your car's tyres moves towards the centre of your hubs when they are compressed when in contact with the road surface, yet move outwards again when they are at the top. But strange as it may seem despite the obvious evidence of the Mach thruster your car doesn't float off the road surface!!
"I mean, it is self-evident that the two bodies are going to simply move relative to their CoM, and that the CoM has no "net motion" whatsoever. "
It's self evident if you're simple enough to be this long after Einstein and still think Newtonian physics is the end of it. MLT states in effect that if the higher mass is yanked harder (stronger acceleration) for some part of it's motion while symmetrically located about 90degrees (360 being a cycle of motion), then it will experience a net force towards 90. If in free fall, it will see net acceleration. Also, butter will be separated from cream*.
While I do not know the math, I have reading comprehension pretty well down. Problems there are the exception rather than the rule.
What you are seeing in the diagram is not the entire physical system, it only shows the mechanism, which if the Mach-Lorentz conjecture as to the origin of inertia is correct, acts to tug on the entirety of the rest of the universe in order to move itself forward.
It acts by virtue of the mobile mass seeing a harder acceleration in one direction than in the return direction, so its inertia piles up whatever Planck's length is the innate measure of** behind it and puts tension on that fabric ahead of it; so free of other countervailing forces it moves.
The question is, can Woodward's work here be replicated, and can experimental error be eliminated as the source of the very promising signal.
If it is replicated, then materials science needs to go to work finding out how to make materials that let the effect be exploited for useful propulsion. And the theoretic result of the MLT being used is, depending on whom I've read, that the whole universe gets smaller, colder, or hotter. No physicist I've read seems to have a good handle on that..the other possibility is the the whole of the rest of the universe just moves a little bit in the other direction from the MLT's motion.
*Since the result of the effect is predicted to follow a cube law with frequency of the cycle, cream would more likely just be instantaneously evaporated from the MLT surface a la the Leidenfrost effect--it seems you need GHz freqs for good performance.
**The bit about the Planck length is my extrapolating from what I've read, I do not recall that specific term used before, and lately I see the term Gavito-Inertial waves a lot.
It's self evident if you're simple enough to be this long after Einstein and still think Newtonian physics is the end of it. MLT states in effect that if the higher mass is yanked harder (stronger acceleration) for some part of it's motion while symmetrically located about 90degrees (360 being a cycle of motion), then it will experience a net force towards 90. If in free fall, it will see net acceleration. Also, butter will be separated from cream*.
While I do not know the math, I have reading comprehension pretty well down. Problems there are the exception rather than the rule.
What you are seeing in the diagram is not the entire physical system, it only shows the mechanism, which if the Mach-Lorentz conjecture as to the origin of inertia is correct, acts to tug on the entirety of the rest of the universe in order to move itself forward.
It acts by virtue of the mobile mass seeing a harder acceleration in one direction than in the return direction, so its inertia piles up whatever Planck's length is the innate measure of** behind it and puts tension on that fabric ahead of it; so free of other countervailing forces it moves.
The question is, can Woodward's work here be replicated, and can experimental error be eliminated as the source of the very promising signal.
If it is replicated, then materials science needs to go to work finding out how to make materials that let the effect be exploited for useful propulsion. And the theoretic result of the MLT being used is, depending on whom I've read, that the whole universe gets smaller, colder, or hotter. No physicist I've read seems to have a good handle on that..the other possibility is the the whole of the rest of the universe just moves a little bit in the other direction from the MLT's motion.
*Since the result of the effect is predicted to follow a cube law with frequency of the cycle, cream would more likely just be instantaneously evaporated from the MLT surface a la the Leidenfrost effect--it seems you need GHz freqs for good performance.
**The bit about the Planck length is my extrapolating from what I've read, I do not recall that specific term used before, and lately I see the term Gavito-Inertial waves a lot.
Last edited by TDPerk on Sun Feb 21, 2010 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
Well demonstrated, yes. I am supposing you have heard of quantum entanglement?
Yes, well demonstrated.
Also, note it doesn't rotate like a spinning barbell, instead it oscillates as if the bar of the barbell was being made longer and shorter. On top of that, in the ML devices being tested, only half of the barbell is present. The time variant mass required by the ML is induced by charging a capacitor on the upswing and moving it sharply on the anti-motion portion of the oscillation, and discharging it prior to the bulk of the return. The mass of the electrons is time variant in translation along the predicted force axis.
Yes, well demonstrated.
Also, note it doesn't rotate like a spinning barbell, instead it oscillates as if the bar of the barbell was being made longer and shorter. On top of that, in the ML devices being tested, only half of the barbell is present. The time variant mass required by the ML is induced by charging a capacitor on the upswing and moving it sharply on the anti-motion portion of the oscillation, and discharging it prior to the bulk of the return. The mass of the electrons is time variant in translation along the predicted force axis.
Last edited by TDPerk on Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
http://nextbigfuture.com/search/label/mach%20effectchrismb wrote:So, is that diagram in that link the outright definition of this "Mach effect"?
including an interview with Paul March and some presentations in digital format.
Also some posts by P March @ NSF, with some details and arguments that might not've been covered at nextbigfuture.
That much sounds like stiction drive, which can easily sneak in with poor experimental design. One way to avoid the problem is to hang the experimental drive on a pendulum and measure offset with the drive active.TDPerk wrote:It acts by virtue of the mobile mass seeing a harder acceleration in one direction than in the return direction, ...
You are merely cementing my contempt for this.TDPerk wrote:And before you get all huffy, chrismb, try to remember that spooky action at a distance has already been well demonstrated...
Quantum entanglement is the preservation of spin momentum in the event of an "observation". This is not a "force at a distance" but merely "information at a distance". There is no "force" involved and is still entirely consistent with Newtonian mechanics (as far as Newtonian mechanics goes - Newton would have had no reason for presuming such mechanics work at this level of atomic particles, if he had know of them).