Mach Effect progress

[GeeGee]

GeeGee, I have an open offer here for anyone who wants to be included in such private communications to shoot me a private note. Send your name, a couple sentences about your background and interest, and your email address; and I'll forward them to Woodward to get you included in his private mailing list if you like.

I've sent you a PM.

[madsci]

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

Hello Tom, what is the status of this experiment ? Did you build the kit and what were the results ?

[madsci]

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.

What are the correct equations ?
Can someone point me to the web page / paper with the latest (correct) version of the equations ?
I am also interested in the formulas that give mass variation or thrust as a function of capacity, voltage, frequency, etc..

[tomclarke]

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.

What are the correct equations ?
Can someone point me to the web page / paper with the latest (correct) version of the equations ?
I am also interested in the formulas that give mass variation or thrust as a function of capacity, voltage, frequency, etc..

Wodward had a constant K.His initial assumptions about this would have made effect large. Now however it is known experimentally to be several OOMs smaller than this. But the constant is still unknown.

[madsci]

Wodward had a constant K.His initial assumptions about this would have made effect large. Now however it is known experimentally to be several OOMs smaller than this. But the constant is still unknown.

Which paper are you referring at because in the paper I'm looking at:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/ ... 213310.pdf

there is no constant K.
There, the mass variation of a charging capacitor is completely determined without any need for unknown parameters.

[nextbigfuture]

Brian Wang
blwang@gmail.com
writer/owner nextbigfuture.com

[madsci]

Brian Wang
blwang@gmail.com
writer/owner nextbigfuture.com

Hello Brian,

I like your site a lot.

[Skipjack]

Brian Wang
blwang@gmail.com
writer/owner nextbigfuture.com

Visit it several times a day, always interesting!

[AcesHigh]

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.

What are the correct equations ?
Can someone point me to the web page / paper with the latest (correct) version of the equations ?
I am also interested in the formulas that give mass variation or thrust as a function of capacity, voltage, frequency, etc..

Wodward had a constant K.His initial assumptions about this would have made effect large. Now however it is known experimentally to be several OOMs smaller than this. But the constant is still unknown.

several orders of magnitude?? Do they think the effect will still be useable being this weak? Or that they can make it stronger?

of course, for the time being, even an effect as weak as an ion engine would be awesome, if propellantless (although you would still need chemical rockets to put the engies in space)

[madsci]

Wodward had a constant K.His initial assumptions about this would have made effect large. Now however it is known experimentally to be several OOMs smaller than this. But the constant is still unknown.

Which paper are you referring at because in the paper I'm looking at:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/ ... 213310.pdf

there is no constant K.
There, the mass variation of a charging capacitor is completely determined without any need for unknown parameters.

Apparently tomclarke is unreachable.
Does anyone else in which paper this constant K appears ?

[tomclarke]

Wodward had a constant K.His initial assumptions about this would have made effect large. Now however it is known experimentally to be several OOMs smaller than this. But the constant is still unknown.

Which paper are you referring at because in the paper I'm looking at:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/ ... 213310.pdf

there is no constant K.
There, the mass variation of a charging capacitor is completely determined without any need for unknown parameters.

Apparently tomclarke is unreachable.
Does anyone else in which paper this constant K appears ?

Woodward's original derivation of mach effect could not determine its magnitude, except by a hand wavinbg argument that the constant of proportionality should be 1 in some natural units. (g/c^2 or something, I can't remember).

When it was clear any effect was much smaller than this (after woodwards more recent experiments, which were a lot more accurate) Woodward introduced a constant.

Of course, it makes the derivation much less convincing.

Tom

[kurt9]

Tom,

can you tell us which paper woodward introduces the constant you are refering to. I dont see it in any of the papers that i have.

[tomclarke]

Tom,

can you tell us which paper woodward introduces the constant you are refering to. I dont see it in any of the papers that i have.

It is in the one discussing results from his latest experiments. Ask Paul March?

[IntLibber]

Which paper are you referring at because in the paper I'm looking at:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/ ... 213310.pdf

there is no constant K.
There, the mass variation of a charging capacitor is completely determined without any need for unknown parameters.

Apparently tomclarke is unreachable.
Does anyone else in which paper this constant K appears ?

Woodward's original derivation of mach effect could not determine its magnitude, except by a hand wavinbg argument that the constant of proportionality should be 1 in some natural units. (g/c^2 or something, I can't remember).

When it was clear any effect was much smaller than this (after woodwards more recent experiments, which were a lot more accurate) Woodward introduced a constant.

Of course, it makes the derivation much less convincing.

Tom

This isn't quite accurate. you are speaking of phi = c^2, which is also phi/c^2 = 1 and the "less than 1" is 0.23 only if you count all far off active mass including: visible matter, COBE, Dark matter, and Dark energy. HOWEVER, as Jack Sarfatti has stated, if you count the backward acting de Sitter universe event horizon, this value returns to 1.

[DeltaV]

Possibly applicable to Mach-Woodward experimental devices - Restraint improves dielectric performance, lifespan

Duke University engineers have demonstrated that rigidly constraining dielectric materials can greatly improve their performance and potentially lengthen their lifespans.

Edit - Or maybe not... seems to involve polymer dielectrics only. Paul M. - what's your preferred dielectric?