Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/01/2014 08:32 pmDr. Rodal, I agree with your opinion of the guys posting in this forum. Can I presume you agree that you, amongst others here, have posted now quite a few opinions about work you're not familiar with, and thus validate my observation that these forums do indeed do what I'm saying they do?And it is funny. :-) And you can find the same at Talk Polywell, and Next Big Future and Physics.org and Phys.org, etc.You are incorrect. I have only commented about the specific papers I have read and I have made that clear in my posts, including links and explicit quotations.
Dr. Rodal, I agree with your opinion of the guys posting in this forum. Can I presume you agree that you, amongst others here, have posted now quite a few opinions about work you're not familiar with, and thus validate my observation that these forums do indeed do what I'm saying they do?And it is funny. :-) And you can find the same at Talk Polywell, and Next Big Future and Physics.org and Phys.org, etc.
I have only commented about the specific papers I have read and I have made that clear in my posts, including links and explicit quotations.
Quote from: Rodal on 09/26/2014 12:26 pmDo people get a sense of a moving goal post ? . When experiments do not show the predicted effect, multiplicative fudge factors ranging from 0 to 1, such that for a value of zero there is no Woodward effect, are proposed by Buldrini. No estimation is presented of what the value of the fudge factors should be. Now a new condition is added that the effect won't manifest itself unless the drive is simultaneously accelerated by external power. When did this condition first appear in Woodward's publications?What magnitude of “bulk” acceleration is large enough according to Woodward?It is elucidating that we get now a recognition by Woodward that:<<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations. >>This effectively recognizes that solely replacing fluctuations in the rest energy by the fluctuations in the electric power input to a capacitor is not just "overly optimistic" but invalid. See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1260795#msg1260795 He now adds the extra condition that the device needs to be simultaneously accelerated to an unspecified large enough “bulk” acceleration. The new experimental setup used by Woodward involves the linear (in voltage) piezoelectric effect and the quadratic (in voltage) electrostrictive effect in a stack of PZT disc capacitors.This above, Dr. Rodel; was brought to my attention in another forum, because you are here slandering a good man and accusing him of moving the goal posts, saying the predicted effect didn't show up, using fudge factors when in fact no thrust magnitude prediction had been made for good reason, and of creating "new conditions" when in fact these conditions are in the peer reviewed literature going back almost 20 years now. If I'm wrong and you've been unusually restrained you have my apology but it looks like you're acting very typically for this sort of venue.
Do people get a sense of a moving goal post ? . When experiments do not show the predicted effect, multiplicative fudge factors ranging from 0 to 1, such that for a value of zero there is no Woodward effect, are proposed by Buldrini. No estimation is presented of what the value of the fudge factors should be. Now a new condition is added that the effect won't manifest itself unless the drive is simultaneously accelerated by external power. When did this condition first appear in Woodward's publications?What magnitude of “bulk” acceleration is large enough according to Woodward?It is elucidating that we get now a recognition by Woodward that:<<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations. >>This effectively recognizes that solely replacing fluctuations in the rest energy by the fluctuations in the electric power input to a capacitor is not just "overly optimistic" but invalid. See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1260795#msg1260795 He now adds the extra condition that the device needs to be simultaneously accelerated to an unspecified large enough “bulk” acceleration. The new experimental setup used by Woodward involves the linear (in voltage) piezoelectric effect and the quadratic (in voltage) electrostrictive effect in a stack of PZT disc capacitors.
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/01/2014 08:14 pmQuoteHold tha damn phone. Am I correct in my interpretation that you or some group of people you know is actively attempting to Sheppard Woodward's work all the way through to commercialization??Yes.And where can a space geek go to keep abreast of such developments?
QuoteHold tha damn phone. Am I correct in my interpretation that you or some group of people you know is actively attempting to Sheppard Woodward's work all the way through to commercialization??Yes.
Hold tha damn phone. Am I correct in my interpretation that you or some group of people you know is actively attempting to Sheppard Woodward's work all the way through to commercialization??
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/01/2014 08:49 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/26/2014 12:26 pmDo people get a sense of a moving goal post ? . When experiments do not show the predicted effect, multiplicative fudge factors ranging from 0 to 1, such that for a value of zero there is no Woodward effect, are proposed by Buldrini. No estimation is presented of what the value of the fudge factors should be. Now a new condition is added that the effect won't manifest itself unless the drive is simultaneously accelerated by external power. When did this condition first appear in Woodward's publications?What magnitude of “bulk” acceleration is large enough according to Woodward?It is elucidating that we get now a recognition by Woodward that:<<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations. >>This effectively recognizes that solely replacing fluctuations in the rest energy by the fluctuations in the electric power input to a capacitor is not just "overly optimistic" but invalid. See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1260795#msg1260795 He now adds the extra condition that the device needs to be simultaneously accelerated to an unspecified large enough “bulk” acceleration. The new experimental setup used by Woodward involves the linear (in voltage) piezoelectric effect and the quadratic (in voltage) electrostrictive effect in a stack of PZT disc capacitors.This above, Dr. Rodel; was brought to my attention in another forum, because you are here slandering a good man and accusing him of moving the goal posts, saying the predicted effect didn't show up, using fudge factors when in fact no thrust magnitude prediction had been made for good reason, and of creating "new conditions" when in fact these conditions are in the peer reviewed literature going back almost 20 years now. If I'm wrong and you've been unusually restrained you have my apology but it looks like you're acting very typically for this sort of venue.Mr. Stahl, you have now raised this to another, serious level. You have now stated << you are here slandering a good man >>. Slander is "the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation"I asked a question, whether goal posts where being moved, regarding the appearance of "bulk acceleration," which I had not seen previously. The explanation was given by a number of people in this forum, regarding what you call the MLT type of thruster that motivated my question. I have not questioned those answers and I have moved over to other issues as I always made clear that I had no other interest than the NASA experiments. At that time I thought that Dr. White's slide 40 (on the "MLT") was an experiment run at NASA.You should know all this by now, so you are the one making a completely unfounded charge. You should retract your unfounded charge that I slandered anybody.
Quote from: Rodal on 10/01/2014 09:05 pmQuote from: Ron Stahl on 10/01/2014 08:49 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/26/2014 12:26 pmDo people get a sense of a moving goal post ? . When experiments do not show the predicted effect, multiplicative fudge factors ranging from 0 to 1, such that for a value of zero there is no Woodward effect, are proposed by Buldrini. No estimation is presented of what the value of the fudge factors should be. Now a new condition is added that the effect won't manifest itself unless the drive is simultaneously accelerated by external power. When did this condition first appear in Woodward's publications?What magnitude of “bulk” acceleration is large enough according to Woodward?It is elucidating that we get now a recognition by Woodward that:<<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations. >>This effectively recognizes that solely replacing fluctuations in the rest energy by the fluctuations in the electric power input to a capacitor is not just "overly optimistic" but invalid. See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1260795#msg1260795 He now adds the extra condition that the device needs to be simultaneously accelerated to an unspecified large enough “bulk” acceleration. The new experimental setup used by Woodward involves the linear (in voltage) piezoelectric effect and the quadratic (in voltage) electrostrictive effect in a stack of PZT disc capacitors.This above, Dr. Rodel; was brought to my attention in another forum, because you are here slandering a good man and accusing him of moving the goal posts, saying the predicted effect didn't show up, using fudge factors when in fact no thrust magnitude prediction had been made for good reason, and of creating "new conditions" when in fact these conditions are in the peer reviewed literature going back almost 20 years now. If I'm wrong and you've been unusually restrained you have my apology but it looks like you're acting very typically for this sort of venue.Mr. Stahl, you have now raised this to another, serious level. You have now stated << you are here slandering a good man >>. Slander is "the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation"I asked a question, whether goal posts where being moved, regarding the appearance of "bulk acceleration," which I had not seen previously. The explanation was given by a number of people in this forum, regarding what you call the MLT type of thruster that motivated my question. I have not questioned those answers and I have moved over to other issues as I always made clear that I had no other interest than the NASA experiments. At that time I thought that Dr. White's slide 40 (on the "MLT") was an experiment run at NASA.You should know all this by now, so you are the one making a completely unfounded charge. You should retract your unfounded charge that I slandered anybody.You're entirely right. Slander was a very unfortunate choice of words. Slander is always intentional IIUC, and my point was certainly, that you mischaracterized this issue out of ignorance rather than malice. I do not think you intended any malice, but rather; that you are demonstrating a very common and understandable skepticism. Lets be candid shall we? Not one in 100 schemes like what we're here talking about is worth the time to look at. And nothing against engineers! but almost always they are the result of an engineer pretending to be a physicist. There used to be an entire site dedicated to this kind of chicanery--"American Antigravity". So anyone who is interested in the field of advanced propulsion, necessarily needs to develop some skepticism over time. Almost all this stuff is crackpot! IMHO, the QVF stuff is crackpot and that's coming from NASA!So there are no hard feelings here and I really should not have written "slander" as that was just plain wrong and you have my apology. Please do try to sympathize, I've known Jim for many years now, and he is an excellent man of honor and integrity, due proper respect and a fair shake, which he does not usually get.
Quote from: aero on 10/01/2014 05:32 pmI was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, andE field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.Are these reasonable values? I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.We know from the "Anomalous Thrust ..." report that the COMSOL finite element calculations display a maximum Electric field of 47189 Volts per meter (p. 10, Fig. 14). I couldn't find any numerical information given for the Electric Field results from COMSOL for the Tapered Cavity.Also, you may find something useful for comparison in FIg. 16 of the report, for the predicted and actual gain (S21), as attached here (vertical scale: Amplitude (dB); horizontal scale: frequency):(The numbering convention for S-parameters is that the first number following the “S” is the port where the signal emerges, and the second number is the port where the signal is applied. S21 is a measure of the signal coming out port 2 relative to the RF stimulus entering port 1: the ratio of transmitted to incident voltage signals. S21 is the forward complex transmission coefficient)It is apparent that the comparison from this COMSOL analysis to the actual results is not that great...
I was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, andE field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.Are these reasonable values? I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.
Quote from: frobnicat on 09/27/2014 09:53 pm. . .my feeling (as an average mainstream science educated person somehow following the topic) is that the various teams involved in experiments are choosing the wrong methodology and should follow some guidelines for fundamental research experimentalistsI'm sorry but that's not true at all. Obviously, you have not read the book.
. . .my feeling (as an average mainstream science educated person somehow following the topic) is that the various teams involved in experiments are choosing the wrong methodology and should follow some guidelines for fundamental research experimentalists
Quoteplease produce a complete detailed description of one single self contained airtight device, thermally isolated, energetically isolated, electromagnetically shielded, that is reproducible and will guarantee anyone caring to follow the instructions to observe a thrust/power effect better than 1/c for a few secondsWhile I understand and appreciate what you're trying to do, all i can say in few words is, you are putting out criteria that are unreasonable and unnecessary.
please produce a complete detailed description of one single self contained airtight device, thermally isolated, energetically isolated, electromagnetically shielded, that is reproducible and will guarantee anyone caring to follow the instructions to observe a thrust/power effect better than 1/c for a few seconds
In the words of Dr. Dennis Bushnell, NASA's Chief Scientist and point man for all propulsion and power exploration like these, the reason NASA is not biting is that they don't have anyone able to judge the theory.
The experimental setup is not the trouble. Since they cannot do a real evaluation of theory, what they've asked for is more thrust, which is what Jim is working on.
Quote from: Rodal on 10/01/2014 05:44 pmQuote from: aero on 10/01/2014 05:32 pmI was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, andE field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.Are these reasonable values? I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.We know from the "Anomalous Thrust ..." report that the COMSOL finite element calculations display a maximum Electric field of 47189 Volts per meter (p. 10, Fig. 14). I couldn't find any numerical information given for the Electric Field results from COMSOL for the Tapered Cavity.Also, you may find something useful for comparison in FIg. 16 of the report, for the predicted and actual gain (S21), as attached here (vertical scale: Amplitude (dB); horizontal scale: frequency):(The numbering convention for S-parameters is that the first number following the “S” is the port where the signal emerges, and the second number is the port where the signal is applied. S21 is a measure of the signal coming out port 2 relative to the RF stimulus entering port 1: the ratio of transmitted to incident voltage signals. S21 is the forward complex transmission coefficient)It is apparent that the comparison from this COMSOL analysis to the actual results is not that great...I could very easily be making an error in my calculations - BUT - Fig. 14 is for the Cannae Cavities while my calculations address the tapered frustum. The paper doesn't give a Q-factor for the Cannae Cavities so I can't do a calculation to check myself with that example. On the other hand, I can do a calculation to estimate what the Q-factor would be if the stored RF wave energy results in an electric field of 4.7189E+04 volts per meter. It is very, very small. Small to the point of being nonsense at ~0.0007. Correct me where I'm wrong, but the E field energy of the RF wave is given from w = epsilon_sub_o* E^2 where w is energy per unit volume, epsilon_sub_o = 8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 s4 A2 and the Quality factor is energy stored / energy lost per cycle. So I'm taking w = 28 watts with the unit volume of one and calculating much larger values than Fig. 14 shows.
What you're describing is one of 5 plans in progress for the DARPA grant process.DARPA grants are very odd compared to other grants because they require the whole TRL process. They generally cover TRL6 and 7 in 2 phases, but they require the TRL-1-5 history, the phase 1 TRL6 plan in detail, the follow on TRL7 plan in detail (though they expect changes after phase 1), the plan for the jump to TRL8 commercialization including whom will build the product and a market analysis of who would pay for it. What you're taking about is part of the TRL9 analysis, which is to provide Dragon with an M-E trunk that can take it to the Moon and Mars. This is one of 5 early "low thrust" applications, but the trunk needs to be completely refitted so this is not a cheap nor simple issue.What is cheap is to catch a free ride to orbit for a nanosat, but this still requires miniaturization. And really you don't want to send stuff to orbit without paying for that step because that is the step where radiation hardening takes place, and where the actual FOM's for future spacecraft with all their working systems come from. You want the grant to pay for the miniaturization so you have it ready to go to market. In our case, miniaturization does not happen until phase 2/TRL7, but this is quite normal and the electrical engineering for this can be shopped out to literally dozens of places so there is little challenge there save how it affects delivery times of other portions of the project.
will ... bring some numbers to this axion craze ..
Quote from: aero on 10/01/2014 11:06 pmQuote from: Rodal on 10/01/2014 05:44 pmQuote from: aero on 10/01/2014 05:32 pmI was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, andE field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.Are these reasonable values? I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.We know from the "Anomalous Thrust ..." report that the COMSOL finite element calculations display a maximum Electric field of 47189 Volts per meter (p. 10, Fig. 14). I couldn't find any numerical information given for the Electric Field results from COMSOL for the Tapered Cavity.Also, you may find something useful for comparison in FIg. 16 of the report, for the predicted and actual gain (S21), as attached here (vertical scale: Amplitude (dB); horizontal scale: frequency):(The numbering convention for S-parameters is that the first number following the “S” is the port where the signal emerges, and the second number is the port where the signal is applied. S21 is a measure of the signal coming out port 2 relative to the RF stimulus entering port 1: the ratio of transmitted to incident voltage signals. S21 is the forward complex transmission coefficient)It is apparent that the comparison from this COMSOL analysis to the actual results is not that great...I could very easily be making an error in my calculations - BUT - Fig. 14 is for the Cannae Cavities while my calculations address the tapered frustum. The paper doesn't give a Q-factor for the Cannae Cavities so I can't do a calculation to check myself with that example. On the other hand, I can do a calculation to estimate what the Q-factor would be if the stored RF wave energy results in an electric field of 4.7189E+04 volts per meter. It is very, very small. Small to the point of being nonsense at ~0.0007. Correct me where I'm wrong, but the E field energy of the RF wave is given from w = epsilon_sub_o* E^2 where w is energy per unit volume, epsilon_sub_o = 8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 s4 A2 and the Quality factor is energy stored / energy lost per cycle. So I'm taking w = 28 watts with the unit volume of one and calculating much larger values than Fig. 14 shows.Thank you for pointing out that the Q factor for the Cannae drive is not given. I had forgotten that.This is my understanding:Cannae drive: E field data is provided. No Q factor provided.Tapered Cavity: E field numerical data range not provided. Q factor provided.________________These are my calculations for the Maximum power density in ("Teflon") PTFE dielectric resonator for Cannae device (notice the frequency "f" in the calculation):MaximumPower = 2 Pi f (E^2) (permittivity of free space) (epsilon')Taking the maximum value of the Electric Field shown in Fig. 14, p.10, as 4.7189*10^4 V/m , and the given frequency of 935 MHz, it follows (for the Teflon PTFE dielectric resonator) that:MaximumPower per unit volume [W/m^3] = 2 Pi (935*10^6 1/s) (( 4.7189*10^4)^2) (8.85418782*10^(-12)) (2.1)MaximumPower per unit volume (in the dielectric resonator)~ 243 W/cm^3
In the words of Dr. Dennis Bushnell, NASA's Chief Scientist and point man for all propulsion and power exploration like these, the reason NASA is not biting is that they don't have anyone able to judge the theory. The experimental setup is not the trouble.
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 10/01/2014 07:53 pmRon, I'm new to this site, but it is my impression is that it would help if you would also include the author of the quotes...
Yes, that was my opinion he quoted. And I'm sorry if that truth seems to annoy but it is the truth.
...anyone who has been around a few years on one or more of these boards knows how opinionated and predictable these forums are.
quite funny indeed. ...Here however we have a clear demonstration of how rational choice theory often fails. It is always complicate to justify rationally the behaviour of individuals wasting their time to say "there is nothing to say here because you are all wrong and uninteresting".
Outside of this thread and forum you would be considered an anomaly.