Mach Effect progress

[paulmarch]

Hi Paul,

Sorry, I wasn't very clear, was I?

I remember you posting a while back that there would likely be a lot more to come once Jim got round to switching to a more promising type of cap. Do I misremember? Has Jim already switched? 150 uN is an order of magnitude above the 10-20 uN we were hearing about just a couple of months back - yes, I know it's transient, but still. How did he get there? The caps change, or simply by turning up the juice?

Kind Regards,
Ric

Looks from the pictures on NSF that a bit more effort has been spent on mechanically tuning the stack--like adding the monster reaction mass at the end.

Ric & Tom:

Dr. Woodward has been using the new Stenir & Martin SM111 PZT material for about a year now. It has higher mechanical Q and lower losses than the EDO65 PZT material that Jim had been using for these stacks up till then. I think the reason that we are now seeing ~130 uN pulses on occasion, and as Tom already pointed out, is the addition of the larger brass reaction mass. In fact Dr. Heidi Fearn who is a new CSUF co-worker with Dr. Woodward has had built a family of brass and tungsten reactions masses to see which one generates the largest thrust pulses. These activities do not address the sporadic nature of observed thrust pulses though and as I noted in an earlier post, active tuning of the PZT stack possibly with the addition of a secondary PZT tuning stack will be required to tame this issue.

Best,

[rcain]

hehe! nice to see the forumee formally known as 'chrismb' renewing old friendships again on the board.

i wondered how 'chrismb's' own experiments were progressing?

as to Mach Effect, etc - i have no idea. someone has to find out. good luck.

even to consistently demonstrate mN's directional would be ground breaking and far reaching.

we'll wait and see.

[Betruger]

It's not reassuring that the results are sporadic. If nothing else the investigators could be on the right path to conclusive results, even if they confirm experimental error.

[ScottL]

http://news.discovery.com/space/warp-dr ... 20917.html also @MSNBC

Hopefully that link stays intact. Interesting to see this in mainstream media even if only hidden away in the links.

[chrismb]

[]

[chrismb]

Now if you're proposing a signal is some sort of coupling, this would not change by altering the direction of the thruster. So when you point the thruster at the floor and the thrust signature goes to zero, you have confidence that you're not looking at several different kinds of spurious signal.

Pass a current around a convex bend, and you will get a reactive thrust perpendicular to the bend tangent away from the convex side (pushing towards the inside of the bend). Turn it around and the thrust is the other way. Point the bend up and the thrust is directed up (pushing the conductor towards the inside of the bend, downwards).

The comment above suggests GIT doesn't understand the nature of the current deflection being proposed. Paul seems to understand chrismb's enquiry and takes it seriously (along with others who also consider the same issue as pending).

It sounds so much better when Paul handles enquiries on this theory - he seems to make it seem .... not implausible, but still up for discussion and investigation .... maybe it is best to leave Paul to describe the status of this work to chrismb, for fear of ridiculing it by your own attempt at answers, GIT?

[GIThruster]

chris, I completely understood the nature of your complaint the first five times I answered it over a year ago. The problem here is not that you dont have a satisfying answer. The problem is you continue on and on and on no matter what the quality of the answers you're given. Even when the silliness you pose is finally over--IT'S NOT OVER! We've been all through this. All through the techniques Jim has used to clearly demonstrate there is no coupling. Just how many times are we supposed to pretend you have authentic questions when it's so obvious they're anything but?

I would just remind you one more time that all of Jim's work over the years has been completely open and transparent. He posts weekly with updates including raw data, photos of the lab, etc. There are now 2 PhD physicists in the lab daily, reporting and presenting on this, to a very large distrbution that includes some of the world's top experimentalists--PhD's from Oxford, Cambridge, Penn State, owners of private physics research labs around the world, etc.

The idea that everyone intimately aware of the details of these experiments and working constantly to find any explanation for the thrusts other than Jim's theory, are all clueless, and you alone have found the solution despite you are completely unfamiliar with the setup--this self-agrandizing delusion has been dealt with by me over many posts in the past. How you can pretend that it has not, is beyond me.

If you have a specific question about how we know a specific spurious source is not operating, I'll do my best to answer your question. The last time I answered it, it seemed pretty obvious that the effect you're talking about does not scale with frequency, and since what we're seeing does, the effect you're supposing cannot account for the date. I'll answer more questions if they're reasonable. I will not however, turn this once again into the chris hour where you strive for attention at the cost of common sense. So far as I'm aware, all your questions have been answered.

[rcain]

[]

- i am supposing that might be a progress report on the forumee formerly known as 'chrismb' s' experiment.

.. that'd be somewhat short of a plank volume then. i suspected as much. we are all doomed then. or resigned to the 'infinite wait' for Pollywell.

[AcesHigh]

http://news.discovery.com/space/warp-dr ... 20917.html also @MSNBC

Hopefully that link stays intact. Interesting to see this in mainstream media even if only hidden away in the links.

also at space.com

http://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-p ... light.html

edit: apparently, its the same article, reproduced from space.com

[GeeGee]

I was reading a thread on reddit about White's warp drive article, and I found this post explaining how exotic matter cannot exist. Does anyone understand the argument he's making?

[GIThruster]

Yes, this is an old argument. It was rejected by Wheeler, Forward, Thorne and others. Deciding that negative mass cannot exist is hardly an answer when the math says it can.

The argument that the universe would have blown itself apart only refers to if the whole universe where made of negative mass, which no one is supposing. Also he neglects to consider negative mass as a transient state rather than a permanent one.

Generally though, the illustration of the marble on a bowl is an excellent one. It illustrates the self accelerating mass Forward is famous for proposing as a field drive. If we could get some constantly negative mass, it would do just as he says, with one exception.

The exception is a mistake that even physicists make often, which is to say that negative mass would be anti-gravitating or would be repelled by normal matter. This is not true. Gravitationally it acts normally toward normal mass because it is a double negative--its gravitational force is directed away from normal matter, but since it has negative inertia the effect is to make it fall toward normal matter anyway. It's this that puts severe limits on the bowl illustration and shows why the effect of negative matter blowing the universe apart would only occur if the entire universe were made of the stuff. Given it's not, we have the universe we have today. In short, negative mass only falls away from other negative mass. It acts gravitationally normally in relation to normal matter. It does however have negative inertia so inertially it still has these very weird properties. Push on it, and it does not push back. Very weird. . .

Probably the reason this person made this error is that he is accustomed to thinking in terms of only negative gravity, and not negative inertia as well. Note how he phrases the issue at the start concerning "gravitational charge" and leaves all discussion of inertia to the side. He's obviously not considered Mach's Principle and not appreciated the interconnection between gravity and inertia. No fault there. Mach is sadly missing from normal field physics. Alas that so many have assumed Mach's Principle is unnecessary when it is the key to understanding this stuff.

IIRC, Thorne's work on wormholes deals with this very succinctly.

[chrismb]

The problem here is not that you dont have a satisfying answer. The problem is you continue on and on and on no matter what the quality of the answers you're given.

chrismb doesn't post here any more, but if he did he would almost certainly point out that you, likewise, simply post on and on and on, and continue on and on with comments and observations of experiments that never give a satisfying result.

The difference, in your eyes, would appear to be clear. But to everyone else it simply looks like you're 'having you cake AND eating it'.

All that the experiments [that you go on an on and on about] have to do is to produce a clearly measurable, consistent and independently repeatable result with ALL critical variabilities removed. Continually repeating that you have addresses chrismb's principal concern (when in fact you have done no such thing but simply bad-mouthed it) does not make it more real. And of course the effect that chrismb has raised would scale with frequency, as inductance (viz dI/dt) scales with frequency. Any further scaling would depend on the particular reactance of the circuit at the frequency in question.

With LiPo batteries of the power density they currently have, it should be comparatively trivial to design the kit to balance sufficient battery power on the motive arm of this experiment, thereby avoiding guessing at a result, as you are doing, and proving it as an experiment should do.

The previous recommendation that you may be better off leaving the explanations to Paul, for fear of your answers ridiculing that which you seek to help, seems wise.

There are also thousands of researchers and PhDs looking at something called 'Anthropological Global Warming', which, by the logic of 'a thing's validity is proportional to its research population' shows that ME thrusters are several thousand times less likely than AGW. Do you concur with this analysis, or do you admit to certain limitations in your theory of 'validated because of the size of the research community population'?

[GIThruster]

Do you concur with this analysis, or do you admit to certain limitations in your theory of 'validated because of the size of the research community population'?

Anyone who knows anything about the challenges of this work knows you couldn't be more wrong in pretending its trivial design kit to build what you're describing, at least what would be necessary. Your remote control kit would need to be not only remote on and off, but varied power, PLL, and active power, frequency and phase monitoring, accelerometer data all sent back wirelessly from a test item inside a Faraday cage. There are a host of reasons the TRL-6 kit you're describing is NOT a suitable research tool and NOT a simple nor trivial thing to construct. All you would provide for is be on/off and when it doesn't work, you would not know why and would learn nothing.

That's not a research experiment.

And just to repeat, you do not have a cogent explanation for the thrust. If you're proposing something like a railgun type phenomenon, it is obvious from the geometry of the test apparatus that this is impossible. Likewise it is impossible because the thrust reverses with altering the phase between the 1w and 2w portions of the wave. Likewise your proposal cannot explain the signal on the rotator experiment from 2 years ago which had no thrust. You would know all this if you were familiar with the experimental work, or of you would just take someone's word for it. We did have this discussion in detail a year ago.

But we've been through all this before and you did promise to stop being a pest. Running to Paul a year after your questions have been answered and you've worn out everyone's patience is pretty much what 8 year-olds do. You've had it explained to you why this type of program is not current. You've had the discussions about it supported by PhD's related to you and their conclusion. It's all been explained why you are not directing the work at Fullerton, chris. Can we get this straight? You absolutely are NOT directing the work at Fullerton.

As I said, no matter the number of answers why, you act like the injured party continually on about things you don't understand. One could laugh if the psychology behind it weren't so tragic.

And just saying, you sound bonkers, chris. Referring to yourself in third person and claiming you no longer post here gives me the willies, like you're now multiple personality disorder.

Doesn't it seem obvious to you chris, that there's something very wrong with you, to take this argument from a year ago and press it once more for no reason, especially knowing you've had all your answers, and no one cares what you think or say?

[chrismb]

Your remote control kit would need to be not only remote on and off, but varied power, PLL, and active power, frequency and phase monitoring, accelerometer data all sent back wirelessly from a test item inside a Faraday cage.

This observation wouldn't wash with chrismb because he already operates kit with 2 way CAN comms via IR at 1Mbps, no problem. He would probably say that he's seen people fall off logs with more difficulty than it'd take to set the kit up for fully isolated operation. But that's just him exaggerating, as he is apt to do.

He'd probably also wonder the value of a Faraday cage when it has power cables running into it. Wouldn't it be a more robust experimental use of a Faraday cage [in fact, would it not be the actual purpose] to have fully isolated electrics within it?

And just to repeat, you do not have a cogent explanation for the thrust.

Why would you think 3rd person rhetoric would have an explanation for anything? The responsibility to explain a supposed experiment is on the experimenters, not on the questions about the experiment. How can questions have an explanation for anything, they are not people? They are just words.

And just saying, you sound bonkers, chris. Referring to yourself in third person and claiming you no longer post here gives me the willies, like you're now multiple personality disorder.

You appear to be throwing ad hominem attacks at a 3rd person messaging pipe, which suggests 'bonkers' is a relative term.

[DeltaV]

Paul,
Here's a fairly recent (1996) type of signal transform that might be useful for studying the phasing problem.

Just a guess based on the description, not that I'm familiar with it (maybe it's 'old hat' to an EE, but new to me).

Wikipedia - S transform

Localization of the Complex Spectrum: The S Transform

Why use the S-Transform?

In summary the DOST and the S-transform approach has the following unique
properties:
1. a direct connection to the Fourier transform through the inverse ST, and a
direct connection to the time series through the direct signal extraction.
2. frequency invariant amplitude response.
3. absolutely referenced phase properties.
4. progressive resolution.
The ST uniquely combines the qualities these characteristics. It simultaneously
estimates the local amplitude spectrum and the local phase spectrum, whereas a
wavelet approach is only capable of probing the local amplitude/power spectrum.
The ST fully represents the amplitude of all signals, in contrast to the CWT which
attenuates high frequencies. It independently probes the positive frequency spectrum
and the negative frequency spectrum, whereas many wavelet approaches are
incapable of being applied to a complex time series. It is sampled at the discrete
Fourier transform frequencies unlike the CWT where the sampling is arbitrary. Because
of the absolutely referenced phase of the S-transform, it is possible to define a
channel Instantaneous Frequency function for each voice [22]. It is possible to perform
a localized cross spectral analysis as shown in [23, 24] where transient wavelike
motions were detected in the time series measured by spaced receivers (physically
separated by a known distance). By analyzing phase shifts in the S-transforms of
the two time series, the phase speed of the wavelike motion was deduced. Such a
straightforward analysis is not possible with a wavelet type approach.

ANALYSIS OF NONSTATIONARY STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS BY USING A BAND-VARIABLE FILTER

Keywords: Non-Parametric Dynamic Identification – Structural Health Monitoring – Nonlinear Systems – Non-Stationary Systems – S-Transform – Strong Motion

This paper proposes a new methodology to approach the study of non-stationary response of soil and buildings: a band-variable filter based on S-Transform. In fact, with the possibility of changing the bandwidth of each filtering window over time, it becomes possible to extract from a generic record only the response of the system focusing on the variation of individual modes of vibration. Practically, it is possible to extract from a generic non-stationary signal only the phase of interest.