Mach Effect Propulsion Research Update

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:Aces,

I can't tell you the amount of flak I got when suggesting that WB-6 be verified. I even had physics guys tell me (when I was just learning) that a potential well was a figment of my optimism and Dr. B was a crank.

And then I found some work the Japanese had done on the issue and those complaints ceased. There were others.

Science begins as heresy, becomes common wisdom, and ends as dogma.

And scientists often act like little children.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I quite like Paul March and Dr. Woodward. They are a bit unconventional, but they are not cranks. Their work has a lot of potential also. It makes me giggle a bit too much, so I have to remain sceptical. But still, I respect them and I wished they had better funding. I am very eager to see results from them.

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

AcesHigh wrote:Although sincerely, not being aquainted with the physics academic community nor funding processes, I dont know how important it may be or not be to dismiss this strong opposition by some physicists on the internet. My common sense says its not important... but I cant be sure.
I suppose it certainly can't hurt to have everyone at the grass roots/hobby experimentation level know that it's based on sound theory and that experimental results definitely don't contradict theory or rule it out. Especially if refuting the opposition is as simple as typing a couple of equations or titles from literature.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

So I'm reading the Feynman Physics Lectures (my head hurts) Book II Chapter 27 and I'm learning (I wish I had started 20 years sooner) that at least part of all mass is electro-magnetic in origin. That at least some component of inertia is due to the charges of particles.

And the topper? At least in Feynman's time there was no self consistent theory for the rest. Anything that had been proposed led to contradictions with what we know.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

MSimon wrote:That at least some component of inertia is due to the charges of particles.
That's a big affirmation. There is yet no paper (known to me) that goes even slightly near to prove this. Was he mentioning any reference in the book or it was just an hypothesis?

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Giorgio wrote:
MSimon wrote:That at least some component of inertia is due to the charges of particles.
That's a big affirmation. There is yet no paper (known to me) that goes even slightly near to prove this. Was he mentioning any reference in the book or it was just an hypothesis?
He did a proof. Not formal, but the math is laid out starting from Maxwell. You have to go back quite a few chapters to see how it develops but it is all there.

I think every one who spends time at this forum needs a firm grounding in:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics (3 Volume Set)

It is some of the most fun, easy to read, and yet dense physics I have ever read.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

MSimon wrote:
Giorgio wrote:
MSimon wrote:That at least some component of inertia is due to the charges of particles.
That's a big affirmation. There is yet no paper (known to me) that goes even slightly near to prove this. Was he mentioning any reference in the book or it was just an hypothesis?
He did a proof. Not formal, but the math is laid out starting from Maxwell. You have to go back quite a few chapters to see how it develops but it is all there.

I think every one who spends time at this forum needs a firm grounding in:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics (3 Volume Set)

It is some of the most fun, easy to read, and yet dense physics I have ever read.
Well it stands to reason that if you charge something up its going to have a lot more electrons in it, and electrons do have atomic mass. Not much, but when it comes to expressing kinetic energy its the velocity that matters, and if you alter the charge back and forth you are going to see some mass occillations. There is also another issue with the charge spin orientation. Normally atoms are oriented in random directions, however its possible to use EM energy to cause them to orient in a specific direction.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

IntLibber wrote:Well it stands to reason that if you charge something up its going to have a lot more electrons in it, and electrons do have atomic mass. Not much, but when it comes to expressing kinetic energy its the velocity that matters, and if you alter the charge back and forth you are going to see some mass occillations. There is also another issue with the charge spin orientation. Normally atoms are oriented in random directions, however its possible to use EM energy to cause them to orient in a specific direction.
Well yes and no. Maxwell's equations account for 1/2 the inertia of a given mass.

And one of my correspondents who keeps an eye on this
place sent me this:

http://calphysics.org/sci_articles.html

With papers like this:

Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, L. J. Nickisch & Jules Mollere, in Amer. Inst. Physics Conf. Proc., Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF-2003), Ed. Mohamed S. El-Genk, pp. 922 - 931, gr-qc/0209016 (2003).

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0209/0209016v1.pdf

==

Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
L. J. Nickisch & Jules Molere, preprint physics/0205086 (2002).

===

Gravity and the quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis

http://calphysics.org/articles/gravity_arxiv.pdf

===

What amazes me is that so many who are presumed experts in physics dismiss this whole line of thought. I don't get it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

IntLibber wrote:
MSimon wrote:
Giorgio wrote: That's a big affirmation. There is yet no paper (known to me) that goes even slightly near to prove this. Was he mentioning any reference in the book or it was just an hypothesis?
He did a proof. Not formal, but the math is laid out starting from Maxwell. You have to go back quite a few chapters to see how it develops but it is all there.

I think every one who spends time at this forum needs a firm grounding in:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics (3 Volume Set)

It is some of the most fun, easy to read, and yet dense physics I have ever read.
Well it stands to reason that if you charge something up its going to have a lot more electrons in it, and electrons do have atomic mass. Not much, but when it comes to expressing kinetic energy its the velocity that matters, and if you alter the charge back and forth you are going to see some mass occillations. There is also another issue with the charge spin orientation. Normally atoms are oriented in random directions, however its possible to use EM energy to cause them to orient in a specific direction.

I had speculated on this earlier in the thread. Paul March disabused me of the notion that that was how the Mach-Lorentz thruster effect worked. He said that the amount of mass from the charge was completely insignificant, and that the real effect was a "Transitional Mass fluctuation" that occurs during the charging process.

In effect, it is the process of charging the plates that cause a momentary mass change, and it is that momentary mass change that the piezoelectric device pushes against. In other words, it is the charge transition that causes the mass change. Not the electrons being on or off the plate.

At this point, I either have to wade through the math, or take his word for it. One of these days I think I will wade through the math, but not any time soon.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

MSimon wrote:Well yes and no. Maxwell's equations account for 1/2 the inertia of a given mass.

And one of my correspondents who keeps an eye on this
place sent me this:

http://calphysics.org/sci_articles.html

With papers like this:

Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, L. J. Nickisch & Jules Mollere, in Amer. Inst. Physics Conf. Proc., Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF-2003), Ed. Mohamed S. El-Genk, pp. 922 - 931, gr-qc/0209016 (2003).

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0209/0209016v1.pdf

==

Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
L. J. Nickisch & Jules Molere, preprint physics/0205086 (2002).

===

Gravity and the quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis

http://calphysics.org/articles/gravity_arxiv.pdf

===

What amazes me is that so many who are presumed experts in physics dismiss this whole line of thought. I don't get it.
Haisch's hypothesis for the origin of inertia is intuitively simple and elegant. The downside is that it requires the electromagnetic zero point field be real, which most theoretical physicists dismiss out of hand. IIRC one of Haisch's collaborators (Rueda?) also has "questionable" physics associations - "free energy," if memory serves.
Vae Victis

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

In effect, it is the process of charging the plates that cause a momentary mass change, and it is that momentary mass change that the piezoelectric device pushes against. In other words, it is the charge transition that causes the mass change. Not the electrons being on or off the plate.
Feynman worked this out in the Book and Chapter I quoted above.

It reminds me of the time I had a physics guy dismiss well formation when I was first studying Polywell. I then found the Japanese well experiments and never heard from him again.

It is a strange world we live in where the physicist can do math that makes my head hurt and yet their understanding stops with high school physics.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Post by DeltaV »

djolds1 wrote:IIRC one of Haisch's collaborators (Rueda?) also has "questionable" physics associations - "free energy," if memory serves.
Puthoff is alleged by some to have Illuminist leanings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff
In the 70s and 80s he directed a CIA/DIA-funded program at SRI International to investigate paranormal abilities, collaborating with Russell Targ in a study of the purported psychic abilities of Uri Geller, Ingo Swann, Pat Price, Joseph McMoneagle and others. Both Puthoff and Russell Targ became convinced Geller and Swann had genuine psychic powers.[2] More conventional explanations for the observed abilities have also been advanced.
Celebrity magazine, Minor Issue 9, February 1974

Puthoff joined the Church of Scientology in the late 1960s and reached the top OT VII level by 1971. Puthoff wrote up his "wins" for a Scientology publication, claiming to have achieved "remote viewing" abilities.[5] In 1974, Puthoff also wrote a piece for Scientology's Celebrity magazine, stating that Scientology had given him "a feeling of absolute fearlessness".
Currently, Puthoff is the CEO of a privately funded research organization called EarthTech International. This organization claims to be dedicated to the exploration of new frontiers in physics. The activities of EarthTech are claimed to be primarily center around investigations into various aspects of the Zero-point field. EarthTech supposedly is performing evaluations of devices (so called "over-unity" devices) that release more energy, presumably extracted from the ambient Zero Point electromagnetic field, than they consume from conventional power sources.

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

djolds1 wrote:
MSimon wrote:Well yes and no. Maxwell's equations account for 1/2 the inertia of a given mass.

And one of my correspondents who keeps an eye on this
place sent me this:

http://calphysics.org/sci_articles.html

With papers like this:

Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, L. J. Nickisch & Jules Mollere, in Amer. Inst. Physics Conf. Proc., Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF-2003), Ed. Mohamed S. El-Genk, pp. 922 - 931, gr-qc/0209016 (2003).

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0209/0209016v1.pdf

==

Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
L. J. Nickisch & Jules Molere, preprint physics/0205086 (2002).

===

Gravity and the quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis

http://calphysics.org/articles/gravity_arxiv.pdf

===

What amazes me is that so many who are presumed experts in physics dismiss this whole line of thought. I don't get it.
Haisch's hypothesis for the origin of inertia is intuitively simple and elegant. The downside is that it requires the electromagnetic zero point field be real, which most theoretical physicists dismiss out of hand. IIRC one of Haisch's collaborators (Rueda?) also has "questionable" physics associations - "free energy," if memory serves.
Thats Puthoff that is the ZPE crank, he's a friend of theirs, he collaborated on the paper but they kept his name off it to avoid reputational issues.

That said, Casimir Effect depends on zero point field for at least part of its behavior, which I can confirm does in fact exist, but a lot of its predicted behaviors have not yet been able to be tested in the lab because they depend on a higher level of nanotech to work on. One of which is the Casimir Torque Effect which should allow for small nanogenerators to spin up based on casimir forces that would thus generate energy from zero point field energy, although arguments are made that this is an energy form of Maxwell's Daemon (which is ostensibly used by simpleton skeptics to make an excuse why its impossible, but when you point out that a black hole event horizon, according to Hawking, is the same form of Maxwell's Daemon, they shut up and walk away muttering).

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

djolds1 wrote:
MSimon wrote:Well yes and no. Maxwell's equations account for 1/2 the inertia of a given mass.

And one of my correspondents who keeps an eye on this
place sent me this:

http://calphysics.org/sci_articles.html

With papers like this:

Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, L. J. Nickisch & Jules Mollere, in Amer. Inst. Physics Conf. Proc., Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF-2003), Ed. Mohamed S. El-Genk, pp. 922 - 931, gr-qc/0209016 (2003).

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0209/0209016v1.pdf

==

Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
L. J. Nickisch & Jules Molere, preprint physics/0205086 (2002).

===

Gravity and the quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis

http://calphysics.org/articles/gravity_arxiv.pdf

===

What amazes me is that so many who are presumed experts in physics dismiss this whole line of thought. I don't get it.
Haisch's hypothesis for the origin of inertia is intuitively simple and elegant. The downside is that it requires the electromagnetic zero point field be real, which most theoretical physicists dismiss out of hand. IIRC one of Haisch's collaborators (Rueda?) also has "questionable" physics associations - "free energy," if memory serves.
I haven't done any physics reading for a year or so, but If memory serves, isn't the predominant theory that inertia is caused by bosons interacting with the "Higgs Field" ? (and these guys don't like the either theory! :) )

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

The more I see of physics (in its current state) the more I see knowledge wrapped up in complete packages suitable for consumption in the daily newspaper with consensus and no mention of the huge holes and serious doubts that we know anything more than engineering physics i.e. in this domain these calculations work and in that domain you do it that way and when you cross domains you are on your own.

I'm beginning to think it is all climate science - i.e. fraud.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply