As we extract energy from this G/I energy resource, the average kinetic energy temperature of the universe's atoms will decrease until they hit absolute zero.
Dear Star Drive;Thank you very much for your update. If I understand you correct the data-to-noise ratio of the latest tests showed a dB-ratio of ~10dB or 10-to-1. This is IMHO fantastic news. With such a large data-to-noise ratio the viability of the theory, the experiments and therefore the MLT thrusters is IMHO nearly a given. On the other side the Newton/Watt ratio of 0,1 – 10 Newton / Watt you talk about seems rather extreme. I hope these values are not too good to be true. According to a PDF I read a few days ago a normal Toyota Corolla needs around 500 Newton to overcome the drag (body + wheels) at 100kmh (~ 62mph). The car engine needs ~13,5 KW of power for that. On the other side a highly efficient MLT would need only 50 Watts for the same task. So a MLT could be up to 270 times more efficient as a normal car engine which drives the wheels. That’s astounding.
I really hope that the calculations about the very high efficiency of the MLT’s are correct because this would open a complete new world regarding everything transportation, starting with simple pedal powered vehicles up to behemoth star cruisers. But I fear that it could not be so because it sounds too good to be true. Kind regardsManfred
Sith:Any self-contained electrical power generation system with sufficient power output will do, but high efficiency approaches are preferable since they minimize the size and mass of the radiators required to dump the waste heat from the power source. That is why I prefer direct energy to electricity conversion cycles that avoid the Carnot Cycle such as fuel cells or regenerative fuel cells tied to photovoltaic systems for inside Mars orbit work, and Bussard's aneutronic wiffleball fusion reactors with direct kinetic energy to electrostatic energy cycles that can conversion efficiencies greater that 80% needed for deep space work outside of Mars orbit.BTW, I have one final note on the above question on whether the MLT 1.0 N/W operating efficiency GOAL is too good to be true. The TOTAL potential energy wrapped up in the gravinertial (G/I) field, i.e. how big is this G/I field gas tank anyway, is tied directly to the total amount of kinetic energy of every atom in the causally connected (13.7 billion light year radius) universe, AND any potential Dark Energy tied up in "The Quantum Vacuum". As we extract energy from this G/I energy resource, the average kinetic energy temperature of the universe's atoms will decrease until they hit absolute zero. However, we would first have to drain the 67% of the Universe’s mass/energy reserves wrapped up in the Dark Energy field before or in parallel with extracting the kinetic energy reserves of the sensible atoms and subatomic particles that make up the rest of the 33% of the universe’s mass/energy before we run this tank dry. Just to let you know how LARGE an energy reserve this is, the visible portion of the universe's mass/energy makes up ~5% of this available mass/energy reserve per the latest cosmological estimates and they place that figure at ~1x10^80 atoms plus many more subatomic particles like neutrinos. If each atom in the universe has an average ~6.24x 10^-18 Joules (1.0 electron volt) of kinetic energy, which is an educated WAG on my part, then the total kinetic energy that could be conveyed by the G/I field to the MLT from this 5% resource is 6.24x10^-18 x 1.0x10^80 = 6.24x10^62 Joules. A 15 Megaton H-bomb puts out ~6.3x10^16 Joules…Now, if the universe is destined to suffer the "Big Rip" where the Quantum Vacuum's Dark Energy that makes up the rest of the universe’s mass/energy literally rips the universe apart in three-to-ten billion years or so, (See the latest copy of Astronomy Magazine"), our only solution to keep this from happening is for all the civilizations in the universe to extract as much energy as they can from the G/I field to keep this fate from happening!
why did you think that the WarpStar-1 was a great way to start the M-E development process?
If the G/I drives are mounted inside the vehicle as I've done in the WarpStar-1 prototype, it might create some interesting localized gravitational like anomalies in the crew cabin up and downwind of the momentum flux exhaust.
If you transiently shield the local ions in the dielectric from this ambient G/I field thru local ionic accelerations, then momentarily the inertial mass of the ion(s) have to change as it responds to this local disturbance (Kink) in the G/I field.
I'm not sure it's fair to compare a theoretical thruster based upon an almost arbitrary thrust efficiency figure, 1 N/W; to an actual thruster like SSME, etc. But so that you have an idea of what is possible, the 1N/W figure was chosen by Paul and worked into his WarpStar design because it is a reasonable figure. If you read the paper, you'll get an idea.WarpStar 1 is the size of a largish business jet. It can take off and land vertically so needs almost no infrastructure support. You can park it in a few spaces at Walmart. It's fuel cells are regenerative so you can plug it in to recharge the fuels or more quickly just replace the generated water with H2 and O2 and strip the water back off ship on either Earth or the Moon. Top off any LN for cryogenics, add cheese puffs and away you go. Since it doesn't make a hypersonic reentry, there is almost no maintenance to be concerned with and it can easily make 3 round trip flights to the Moon/day dropping several tons of payload each trip. A single WarpStar could build a habitable Moonbase for dozens of people all by itself in less than a month.So you see, there is really no comparing it to rockets. . .the Millenium Falcon maybe. . .
Lampy:"That's interesting. I had thought that the G/I effect was constrained to particles only, (ie the ions in the cap) but from what you're saying and from Woodward's explanation, that the mass variation is a result of a change in G/I local field strength?"You win the prize! The M-E is first and foremost a G/I field effect theory based on the interactions between local ionic masses AND the ambient gravinertial field created by the rest of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe. A G/I field that IS the causal agent of the property we call inertia. If you transiently shield the local ions in the dielectric from this ambient G/I field thru local ionic accelerations, then momentarily the inertial mass of the ion(s) have to change as it responds to this local disturbance (Kink) in the G/I field. (Visions of Obi-Wan talking about the “Force” now come to mind. ) Knowing how the bidirectional mass to G/I field interaction works and the rules that apply to that interaction contains the keys to low cost, faster and much safer inter-solar transportation and practical human crewed interstellar flight.BTW, there is also another way to model the M-E mass fluctuations and that is via looking at them as QM based vacuum fluctuations in between the ions of the dielectric in question. These quantum vacuum fluctuations (QVF) can be modeled as a very short lived and transient electron/positron pair neutral plasma with phonon induced pressure wave interactions that follow standard magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) rules, i.e., your fluid dynamics as applied to electrical plasmas. The dielectric ions in this QVF model then act as obstructions to this plasma when the local dielectric ions are accelerated by an outside force, thus increasing the QVF density around the ions above the universe’s average QVF density of ~1.0x10^-26 kg/m^3. Dr. Harold (Sonny) White (NASA/JSC & Rice U.) has modeled the M-E as a Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation / MHD effect and his QVF/MHD spreadsheet tool predicts the observed thrust of my MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles' to within a factor of two. I think we can be assured that when predicting how the gravinertial (G/I) field will respond to a given stimulus, hydrodynamic analysis tools will have to be used...
If we don't see compelling evidence from the current rotator work by this June, or thrust evidence from March's high Q MLT sometime soon, then I think we'll see another UFG on the ARC Lite for testing by next fall and that should be enough for USG to take an active hand, IMHO.
With a constant 1.0 gee acceleration, the velocity limit is simply vel= vel-o + a*t where a= 9.81 m/sec^2 (1.0 gee) and t is 12 hour run time in seconds or 43,200 sec. So the "burn-out" velocity for this configuration when the LOX/Hydrogen tanks run dry is 423,792 meters/sec or 423.792 km/sec. If you want to go faster then add solar arrays or a fission based nuclear power plant like a SP-100 that can put out that same power for up to ten years. Of coruse after only about 9 months at 1.0 gee you are going 99% the speed of light.