...Readable layman take on the paper: http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=13651
Quote from: jimgagnon on 07/31/2010 05:20 pm...Readable layman take on the paper: http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=13651I read that. I don't even qualify as a layman! There seems to be a difference between mass and inertia. Speaking as a sub-layman (a step above Cro-Magnon), what the heck are we pushing against?
Quote from: cgrunska on 07/29/2010 06:54 pmany new news for this?anything on the polywell fusion reactor?Not really, Woodward is buying/building a new power supply last I heard.Nebel's polywell team isn't due to announce anything until some time between November of this year and May of next year. However, the chief of the Office of Naval Research recently gave a presentation to high level military brass about future naval power, propulsion, and weaponry, and among other things, talked briefly about Polywell remaining on track and giving positive results so far and will be able to meet the Navy's needs for power for its future railgun and other energy weaponry needs. So this is encouraging even if there's no science released as of yet.
any new news for this?anything on the polywell fusion reactor?
Quote from: mlorrey on 07/29/2010 08:01 pmQuote from: cgrunska on 07/29/2010 06:54 pmany new news for this?anything on the polywell fusion reactor?Not really, Woodward is buying/building a new power supply last I heard.Nebel's polywell team isn't due to announce anything until some time between November of this year and May of next year. However, the chief of the Office of Naval Research recently gave a presentation to high level military brass about future naval power, propulsion, and weaponry, and among other things, talked briefly about Polywell remaining on track and giving positive results so far and will be able to meet the Navy's needs for power for its future railgun and other energy weaponry needs. So this is encouraging even if there's no science released as of yet.quick question, do you have any citation on the polywell thing, or was it just something you heard through peers?
I can say this: "you're pushing against the combined gravitational attraction of the rest of the universe", just as easily as the next guy. I just can't actually push on it, nor quite understand the subtleties of that paper I mentioned. That's ok. Carry on.
Imagine you are an egg inside a geodesic sphere of n facets....
Jim W. takes the conservative view that ALL the kinetic energy gain produced by an M-E thruster has to be supplied by the local power supply in the vehicle in question. However, Andrew Palfreyman and my self’s analysis of this energy balance issue shows that there may be an additional external energy source being tapped by the M-E thrusters, and we think it may be the average kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules that make up the 13.7 billion light-year radius causally connected universe. Sonny White on the other hand thinks this external energy source being tapped by these gravinertial (G/I) devices may be the Dark (negative) vacuum energy field that astronomers uncovered over ten years ago now. We won’t know for sure which approach is more realistic until we make M-E thruster that have thrust levels measured in Newtons instead of milli-Newtons.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 08/04/2010 06:28 pm Jim W. takes the conservative view that ALL the kinetic energy gain produced by an M-E thruster has to be supplied by the local power supply in the vehicle in question. However, Andrew Palfreyman and my self’s analysis of this energy balance issue shows that there may be an additional external energy source being tapped by the M-E thrusters, and we think it may be the average kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules that make up the 13.7 billion light-year radius causally connected universe. Sonny White on the other hand thinks this external energy source being tapped by these gravinertial (G/I) devices may be the Dark (negative) vacuum energy field that astronomers uncovered over ten years ago now. We won’t know for sure which approach is more realistic until we make M-E thruster that have thrust levels measured in Newtons instead of milli-Newtons.Paul,Have you and Andrew released this analysis? Or is this based on some proprietary data?Also, wondering how the progress on the improvements to your Excel parametric tool that you've mentioned previously. (i.e. the one that tells you how much thrust you can get for what drive freq, voltage, power).Thanks!Tom
The M-E energy balance analysis came about in a 2006 e-mail exchange with my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper reviewers that included Andrew P. and myself, so it was never published. If I fish around my e-mail archives from that year I think I can dig it out for your review. However, it turns around the fact that when the M-E wormhole term starts to be expressed, kinetic energy from the distant active mass in the universe that creates the local cosmological gravitational field, can be locally harvested by any M-E device for use in accelerating it and the vehicle it is attached to. There is also the possibility about extracting enery from within the lightcone of the local gravitational field by the M-E impulse term that Woodward has not explored very much if at all, but it appears that net energy above and beyond what the local vehicle power supply can provide might also be harvested as well. This is such a controversial area that we've tended to let it lie low until more data is in hand, but it IS the 800 pound gorilla in the M-E or QVF rooms...BTW, I also have Sonny's analysis for the QVF version of this energy conservation argument at hand for both the local and warpdrive versions, but alas they are both proprietary data and we need Sonny's approval before I can send it out. I'll see what I can do about that tomorrow.As to the latest version of the M-E/QVF spreasheet, I've got it pretty much put to bed now, but it needs some new experimental data to verify its predictions before I claim victory with it. If it does end up reflecting reality, and that's a big if, then it becomes a great design tool for building commerical M-E devices. A design tool I'd be loathed to just give away...
Quote from: Star-Drive on 08/06/2010 05:02 amThe M-E energy balance analysis came about in a 2006 e-mail exchange with my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper reviewers that included Andrew P. and myself, so it was never published. If I fish around my e-mail archives from that year I think I can dig it out for your review. However, it turns around the fact that when the M-E wormhole term starts to be expressed, kinetic energy from the distant active mass in the universe that creates the local cosmological gravitational field, can be locally harvested by any M-E device for use in accelerating it and the vehicle it is attached to. There is also the possibility about extracting enery from within the lightcone of the local gravitational field by the M-E impulse term that Woodward has not explored very much if at all, but it appears that net energy above and beyond what the local vehicle power supply can provide might also be harvested as well. This is such a controversial area that we've tended to let it lie low until more data is in hand, but it IS the 800 pound gorilla in the M-E or QVF rooms...BTW, I also have Sonny's analysis for the QVF version of this energy conservation argument at hand for both the local and warpdrive versions, but alas they are both proprietary data and we need Sonny's approval before I can send it out. I'll see what I can do about that tomorrow.As to the latest version of the M-E/QVF spreasheet, I've got it pretty much put to bed now, but it needs some new experimental data to verify its predictions before I claim victory with it. If it does end up reflecting reality, and that's a big if, then it becomes a great design tool for building commerical M-E devices. A design tool I'd be loathed to just give away...Thanks for the response!Also, I wasn't asking for the tool, I just remembered that you'd discovered a problem & said that it needed to be reworked, so I was more just wondering how the output graphs have changed. Like are the graphs from your last STAIF paper still valid or do they need to be revised to show the correct "sweet spot" for reaching 1N/W.
How is Dr. Woodward's health condition now?