building a new Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) prototype based on some N4700 COTS caps that should produce at least an order of magnitude higher thrust than my last successful test article, the Mach-2MHz, which generated up to 0.5 gram-force, (~5.0 milli-Newton). As to when these new test articles will see first light, my guess is sometime this summer.
I know that quite a few of you here, are (like myself) interested in ME and the work by Jim Woodward and Paul March, so I hope it is OK that I post it here and not the General section.
Anyway, 5 grams of force should be quite a measureable effect. IF that can indeed be measured and also reproduced. I might get a nice birthday present this year
Now, lets not be too overly optimistic though.
The capacitors have a rather strong temp coefficient (N4700) and a high dissipation factor above 1 MHz. This may cause confounding effects. If you could get them, NPO capacitors would be better - except that the capacitance per volume would be significantly lower.
I hope Paul March describes how he is going to handle the above.
I'd also be interested in his force/acceleration measurement set up.
One has to be extremely cautions because capacitance non-linear effects can generate harmonics that can be confused with the desired signal.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:The capacitors have a rather strong temp coefficient (N4700) and a high dissipation factor above 1 MHz. This may cause confounding effects. If you could get them, NPO capacitors would be better - except that the capacitance per volume would be significantly lower.
I hope Paul March describes how he is going to handle the above.
I'd also be interested in his force/acceleration measurement set up.
One has to be extremely cautions because capacitance non-linear effects can generate harmonics that can be confused with the desired signal.
I have an MSc student who is building test kit for Mach effect that should give decent thrust (if M-E exists) and can be fully enclosed with batteries inside a double-wall container. This allows unidirectional thrust to be measured with no possibility of magnetic, vibrational or thermal effects compromising results.
The basic principle is to run Laplace force wires along the sides of the capacitors in a 0.5T magnetic field from permanent magnets.
Separating the acceleration and delta-E waveforms in this way has some advantages - not least because relative phase can be adjusted which will alter the M-E sign but keep almost all other effects identical. The two driving waveforms need to be different (harmonically related) frequencies to result in a unidirectional resultant force.
We should manage 30kHz with very high accelerations (limited by stuff breaking).
If this stuff really works (which I doubt) the optimal thruster would I think be a high energy density capacitor (probably film) with many embedded parallel wires carrying AC current separate from the capacitor current and which provide acceleration in the field from permanent magnets.
Best wishes, Tom
PS - if you go by Woodward's original equations our setup should just about be able to levitate - 1kg-f ~ weight of equipment). But these alas are now known not to be correct.
As long as politics stays in General (for the most part) the rules are rather loose. i.e. you decide where a post goes.
No, no, first you submit a Form 12-JT202 for Possibly Improperly Placed Post, the Subcommittee on Post Placement conducts a fact-finding mission, then makes a recommendation to the Talk-Polywell Oversight Commission, which then negotiates with the Moderators' Union over the post-placement fees and schedules a meeting with all involved parties after an appropriate period of public review...
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
There was a thread a few weeks back about a new superconductivity theory. If memory serves, the researcher behind it argued that particles don't exist, just energy in holistic waves. He brought up the 2 slit experiment and Gespenterfeld's and said Heisenberg got it wrong. The Mach effect sound's a bit like it, only for mass, gravity and inertia, plus both concepts are way out there.
The Mach-2MHz M-E test article used two, Vishay/Ceramite 500pF at 15kV, Y5U high-k ceramic caps with an e-r = ~5,000 and a DF= ~2% at 1.0 kHz or a Q= 45 at 2.15 MHz where some of the data for the Mach-2MHz was taken which consistently demonstrated ~1.0 milli-Newton thrust signatures. As noted in my STAIF-2006 report, this test article also had an upper harmonic response of 3.8 MHz that demonstrated a first light thrust signature of +5.0 milli-Newton and -0.30 milli-Newton when the E- and B-fields were phased flipped 180 degrees, using a very well shielded and filetered 500 gram load cell for the thrust data. Cap voltage at these frequencies varied between 50 to 130 V-peak with B-field levels in the 20 to 45 Gauss range in the cap dielectric. Alas this test article also demonstrated thrust die off with time of operation which went to zero with about 15 minutes of cummlative run time.
Now my new MLT-2010 test article is using six, 390pF at 15kV, N4700 caps wired in series (62pF summation) that have an e-r = ~1,400 and a DF= 0.10% (Q= 1,000) or less at 100 kHz. Now here is the fun part, its Q at 2.0 MHz is ~500, but at 4.0 MHz it goes down to 140 which drastically affects its M-E scaling predictions. I'll probably run this new unit at both frequencies to see how it responds at each. Got to get to work...
The Mach-2MHz M-E test article used two, Vishay/Ceramite 500pF at 15kV, Y5U high-k ceramic caps with an e-r = ~5,000 and a DF= ~2% at 1.0 kHz or a Q= 45 at 2.15 MHz where some of the data for the Mach-2MHz was taken which consistently demonstrated ~1.0 milli-Newton thrust signatures. As noted in my STAIF-2006 report, this test article also had an upper harmonic response of 3.8 MHz that demonstrated a first light thrust signature of +5.0 milli-Newton and -0.30 milli-Newton when the E- and B-fields were phased flipped 180 degrees, using a very well shielded and filetered 500 gram load cell for the thrust data. Cap voltage at these frequencies varied between 50 to 130 V-peak with B-field levels in the 20 to 45 Gauss range in the cap dielectric. Alas this test article also demonstrated thrust die off with time of operation which went to zero with about 15 minutes of cummlative run time.
Now my new MLT-2010 test article is using six, 390pF at 15kV, N4700 caps wired in series (62pF summation) that have an e-r = ~1,400 and a DF= 0.10% (Q= 1,000) or less at 100 kHz. Now here is the fun part, its Q at 2.0 MHz is ~500, but at 4.0 MHz it goes down to 140 which drastically affects its M-E scaling predictions. I'll probably run this new unit at both frequencies to see how it responds at each. Got to get to work...
Paul -
Are you sure the effective loss will stay low when you run the capacitors at high %age of DC rating? The spec has C changing 10% or so over voltage range and if cycled over nonlinear portion of dielectric curve I worry about dielectric loss. But maybe I am wrong! They certainly have a decently high energy density.
In terms of results - ceramic capacitors worry me because they have v complex nonlinear effects and high piezo coefficients. Which makes results more difficult to interpret unless you go for unidirectional force AND a fully enclosed system.
I don't think we can use high voltage caps because the L needed to resonate them is too large. Also I worry about 15kV. Easy to make mistakes.
What, you don't relish being zapped by an auto HV distributor transformer at 35kV every morning? And you call yourself an electrical engineer!
But seriously, my e-Bay procured HP-4275A LCR meter indicates that the capacitance of these N4700 caps goes UP at 2 & 4 MHz referenced to their 1.0 kHz values at low voltages, so even if they do go back down at a kV or so, (remember that I'm using 6-caps in series with about 500 to 1,500V-p over each cap dependent of freq.), it won't be much of a change from the expected cap values. And besides I can calculate the actual operational capacitance value by noting the current going through this series connected L-C-R circuit and backing out the average capacitance value that way.
As to force measurments, my first go at it will be with the MLT test article and its 50 ohm Z-matching circuit mounted in a 32 oz Tin/steel Faraday shield/can that will be placed on a 0.1 gram resolution Acculab weight scale that I have in the lab. I'll be driving it from my ICOM 746PRO HF Ham rig via an RG-316U coaxial cable. If someting of interests is expressed under those conditions, I'll then go to the trouble of building up a battery powered 60W, one MOSFET HF transmitter module that I already have the parts for, mount it on the Faraday Shield with its battery, and repeat the above weight delta measurments. If I'm still observing a weight change under these conditions, then I'll mount this MLT/Xmitter assembly on either a 2.0 meter pendulum that I have in the lab or if enough force is being produced, I'll suspend this assembly from a fishscale and mount both of them in a vacuum bell Jar I have for degassing epoxies, and see if the weight differential is still expressed in a rough vacuum. Past that, send funding...
Paul, it is good to see you post here. I think that with the enthusiasm that people here can express for projects, you may very well find the help you need to aquire fuding. "All" you have to do, is convince the people here. I know Msimon is really good at bringing people together and getting grass roots movements going. If you can convince him, you may have a good support here. You will have to be really convincing though...
I am not trying to speak for you Simon, so if I went overboard with that, forgive me.
I've been interested in making a thruster. The problem is, while I've found a powerpoint that talks about how to build the actual thruster itself(iron ring thing cut up with capacitors glued in, basically), there's nothing about control, or the axillary stuff I'm sure is needed.
I'm sure that one of the papers has a bunch of gobblygook about it, but after failing calc twice, I'll not have the technical background to read a highly technical paper anytime soon. While I can get the impression that certain magnetic and electrical fields with letters as names are important, it doesn't help me know how to build a controller circuit to run a thruster.
Thanks much for the offer of financial support, but until there is an unambiguous demonstration of the M-E, I cannot accept it. Jim Woodward has not performed an unambiguous demonstration of the M-E yet. I haven't done it yet either, though my 5.0 milli-Newton test article came close IMO. However when we can all SEE the M-E test article visibly move a few inches under its own power in a test pendulum and hold it there, when it shouldn't be moving due to conventional physics explanations like ionic wind, electrostatic or magnetic forces, etc., then and only then should anyone even think about contributing their hard earned $$ for a cause like this. There are far too many con-artists out in the world and Jim and I don't want to be linked with any of them. I consider this MLT-2010 test just another in a series of M-E tests that may or may not be successful.
If the MLT does produce grams or tens of gram-force as expected, then we are all off to the gravinertial races! If it doesn’t, then we have learned another way NOT to build this type of device. Either way it’s my choice and my “hobby” to perform them and I will not accept financial support until I know we are really dealing with a real effect that is engineerable into a real space drive. From my talks with Jim W., he is of like mind. That is why he is working towards his micro-Newton “M-E Demonstrator” based on his shuttler approach, and I’m working on the high frequency MLTs that have the promise of generating tens or even hundreds of grams of force if we are dealing with a real effect. Jim’s M-E theoretical underpinnings are impeccable, but many a beautiful idea has fallen from grace when we have realized that Mother Nature hadn’t bought into it. Sad, but true…
kunkmiester wrote:I've been interested in making a thruster. The problem is, while I've found a powerpoint that talks about how to build the actual thruster itself(iron ring thing cut up with capacitors glued in, basically), there's nothing about control, or the axillary stuff I'm sure is needed.
I'm sure that one of the papers has a bunch of gobblygook about it, but after failing calc twice, I'll not have the technical background to read a highly technical paper anytime soon. While I can get the impression that certain magnetic and electrical fields with letters as names are important, it doesn't help me know how to build a controller circuit to run a thruster.
kunkmiester:
You don't need fancy control circuits for these types of proof of principle tests other than the one between your ears. Building these M-E devices does require some mechanical abilities though, so if you’re not good at that kind of work I'd not try building one until you are. If you are really interested in this stuff, I'd go back to Woodward's CSUF home page and read his articles and papers on the M-E posted there over and over again until they make some sense to you. Don't let the math spook you, for in the end calculus is just about repetitive adds and subtracts. What counts is understanding the idea that the origins of inertia IS understandable and is based on existing theory that just needs to be expanded a bit from its current interpretations. Good luck with your studies.
Thanks much for the offer of financial support, but until there is an unambiguous demonstration of the M-E, I cannot accept it.
That is one of the reasons why I am still interested in the progress you guys make. This sort of attitude puts you a step lower on my bullshit scale
Well, lets hope you guys are right. The nobel price be yours...
And I will finally get my space ships
