Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 679333 times)

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Re: M-E verification
« Reply #1040 on: 12/30/2010 07:04 PM »
Quote
How is one to separate the electrostriction signal from the purported M-E signal in this data? I see no analysis which demonstrates this.
Quote
DeltaMass:

Find attached Woodward's latest 2010 analysis on the 2009 rotary data set.  I grabbed an earlier 2009 version last night that did not address the electrostriction issue very much.  The main thing one has to keep in mind though in regards to separating the M-E delta mass signal at 2-omega, (2X the drive frequency), and the electrostriction signal that is also expressed at 2-omega, is the fact that they are 180 degrees out of phase with each other, AND the fact they follow different scaling rules verses the applied radial bulk acceleration.  That is why Woodward archived the video clips of the dynamic oscilloscope traces of the cap-ring's 1- and 2-omega signals that showed these amplitude and phase shifts as the RPM and thus the bulk acceleration of the cap-ring were varied from 0-gess up to 811 gees at 60 revolutions per second (3,600 RPM).

I'm sorry, but this new PDF appears to contain even less data that before. And nobody wanting a quick demonstration of results is going to wade through video files of scope traces.

The author himself says that this is not a final report but a work in progress. Clearly what's required is a graph showing the M-E device scaling with rotational frequency, and another showing scaling with applied voltage. A 3D graph would be best of all.

So as far as I can see, the fundamental case for mass fluctuations remains unproven. Piezoelectric and electrostrictive effects are able to account for all the data here, unless proven otherwise. That case has not yet been made.
« Last Edit: 12/30/2010 07:06 PM by deltaMass »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: M-E verification
« Reply #1041 on: 12/31/2010 03:08 AM »
Quote
How is one to separate the electrostriction signal from the purported M-E signal in this data? I see no analysis which demonstrates this.
Quote

DeltaMass:

Find attached Woodward's latest 2010 analysis on the 2009 rotary data set.  I grabbed an earlier 2009 version last night that did not address the electrostriction issue very much.  The main thing one has to keep in mind though in regards to separating the M-E delta mass signal at 2-omega, (2X the drive frequency), and the electrostriction signal that is also expressed at 2-omega, is the fact that they are 180 degrees out of phase with each other, AND the fact they follow different scaling rules verses the applied radial bulk acceleration.  That is why Woodward archived the video clips of the dynamic oscilloscope traces of the cap-ring's 1- and 2-omega signals that showed these amplitude and phase shifts as the RPM and thus the bulk acceleration of the cap-ring were varied from 0-gess up to 811 gees at 60 revolutions per second (3,600 RPM).


I'm sorry, but this new PDF appears to contain even less data than before. And nobody wanting a quick demonstration of results is going to wade through video files of scope traces.

The author himself says that this is not a final report but a work in progress. Clearly what's required is a graph showing the M-E device scaling with rotational frequency, and another showing scaling with applied voltage. A 3D graph would be best of all.

So as far as I can see, the fundamental case for mass fluctuations remains unproven. Piezoelectric and electrostrictive effects are able to account for all the data here, unless proven otherwise. That case has not yet been made.


And what did I say in my previous post to KelvinZero? 

"I used it, (the word demonstrated), not to imply that this data was accepted by the general physics community for it is not, but that it just showed the probable existence of the sought after M-E delta mass signature where very little quantified delta-mass data existed before."

"Clearly what's required is a graph showing the M-E device scaling with rotational frequency, and another showing scaling with applied voltage. A 3D graph would be best of all."

Your request for cap voltage and RPM graphical data in a 3D format is doable, but will have to be translated from the many Excel spreadsheets that this data was accumulated in over several months time by Woodward.  And Woodward almost never makes graphical plots of his data anyway, for he claims that format is too open for misinterpretations.

"And nobody wanting a quick demonstration of results is going to wade through video files of scope traces."

If the M-E video data is still on the web, and you are really interested in this topic, you really ought to find the time to look at it and understand what this M-E rotary video data is trying to tell you.  If that's too much effort for you, that's your problem, not mine.
Star-Drive

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Re: M-E verification
« Reply #1042 on: 12/31/2010 09:27 AM »
Quote

And what did I say in my previous post to KelvinZero? 

"I used it, (the word demonstrated), not to imply that this data was accepted by the general physics community for it is not, but that it just showed the probable existence of the sought after M-E delta mass signature where very little quantified delta-mass data existed before."

"Clearly what's required is a graph showing the M-E device scaling with rotational frequency, and another showing scaling with applied voltage. A 3D graph would be best of all."

Your request for cap voltage and RPM graphical data in a 3D format is doable, but will have to be translated from the many Excel spreadsheets that this data was accumulated in over several months time by Woodward.  And Woodward almost never makes graphical plots of his data anyway, for he claims that format is too open for misinterpretations.

"And nobody wanting a quick demonstration of results is going to wade through video files of scope traces."

If the M-E video data is still on the web, and you are really interested in this topic, you really ought to find the time to look at it and understand what this M-E rotary video data is trying to tell you.  If that's too much effort for you, that's your problem, not mine.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but rather attempting to describe my impressions. Everything hinges on the data, and I find it quite frankly puzzling that someone (Woodward in this case) would go to so much trouble to construct a non-trivial apparatus and then pretty much skip the entire step of data analysis and presentation, so as to rush to a conclusion that it's "very likely" that mass fluctuations exist. I find that odd. Could it be that he doesn't like his own data? Or that he himself doesn't understand it? I sure do not grok where that distorted sinewavey plot of amplitude vs. rotational frequency comes from.

There are three effects here: purported M-E, electrostriction, and piezoelectric effects. On top of all this is a huge amount of thermal drift, evidenced by the blue/red up/down plots. Teasing all these apart is certainly non-trivial - that much is fairly clear, else it would have been published as such already. It is the absence of such an analysis which leaves me with an empty feeling.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2010 09:32 AM by deltaMass »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: M-E verification
« Reply #1043 on: 12/31/2010 05:42 PM »
Quote

And what did I say in my previous post to KelvinZero? 

"I used it, (the word demonstrated), not to imply that this data was accepted by the general physics community for it is not, but that it just showed the probable existence of the sought after M-E delta mass signature where very little quantified delta-mass data existed before."

"Clearly what's required is a graph showing the M-E device scaling with rotational frequency, and another showing scaling with applied voltage. A 3D graph would be best of all."

Your request for cap voltage and RPM graphical data in a 3D format is doable, but will have to be translated from the many Excel spreadsheets that this data was accumulated in over several months time by Woodward.  And Woodward almost never makes graphical plots of his data anyway, for he claims that format is too open for misinterpretations.

"And nobody wanting a quick demonstration of results is going to wade through video files of scope traces."

If the M-E video data is still on the web, and you are really interested in this topic, you really ought to find the time to look at it and understand what this M-E rotary video data is trying to tell you.  If that's too much effort for you, that's your problem, not mine.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but rather attempting to describe my impressions. Everything hinges on the data, and I find it quite frankly puzzling that someone (Woodward in this case) would go to so much trouble to construct a non-trivial apparatus and then pretty much skip the entire step of data analysis and presentation, so as to rush to a conclusion that it's "very likely" that mass fluctuations exist. I find that odd. Could it be that he doesn't like his own data? Or that he himself doesn't understand it? I sure do not grok where that distorted sinewavey plot of amplitude vs. rotational frequency comes from.

There are three effects here: purported M-E, electrostriction, and piezoelectric effects. On top of all this is a huge amount of thermal drift, evidenced by the blue/red up/down plots. Teasing all these apart is certainly non-trivial - that much is fairly clear, else it would have been published as such already. It is the absence of such an analysis which leaves me with an empty feeling.

DeltaMass:

Sorry if I was a bit short with you yesterday.  I just got laid off from my NASA/JSC position after 26+ years on the job and have come down with a cold to boot, so I'm not feeling too charitable right now toward anyone. 

In regards to the M-E rotary data analysis there was a large amount of it accomplished on Woodward's R&D e-mail distribution that you are not privy to.  Remember that I said there is literally tens of MB of data scattered through eight months worth of e-mails and files.  And you are right; Woodward is much more comfortable building experiments and running those verses making reports on same that would pass muster in an engineering college.  It's up to some of us on his distribution like me to try to pull together these loose ends and feed them out to the masses as our time and energy permits.   

Now you asked me for a 3D plot of the cap voltage and rotary gee loading verses the cap-ring’s 2nd harmonic signal that is supposed to be representative of the summation of the piezoelectric, electrostrictive and M-E delta mass signature.  I've not felt up to creating that plot just yet, but I did find a 2D plot from Woodward's March 21, 2009 data set that does have three different operating voltages that I’ve spruced up for your review, along with some supporting slides.  Woodward has gone through an extensive analysis of all three effects you mentioned in the e-mails threads, but probably didn't do them justice in his report I appended.  Looks like I need to filter through the e-mails again and see if I can't distill them down for public use.
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1044 on: 12/31/2010 11:34 PM »
DeltaMass:

Find below an excerpt from Woodward's 2010 M-E Rotary Data analysis on the issues surrounding the presence of piezoelectric, electrostrictive and M-E delta mass signals at the 2nd harmonic of the drive frequency.  This report is appended in an earlier post that I just updated with the Mark-III triple voltage vs bulk acceleration data plot.


"Two types of electromechanical signals can be expected in systems like that under consideration. The first is simple, linear piezoelectric expansion and contraction of the dielectric material in the capacitors in the direction of the electric field applied between the plates. Being linear, this effect has a frequency equal to that of the applied field. Since this is half the frequency of the Mach effect signals sought, it is easily separated from the sought signals and will not be considered further here. The second electromechanical signal to be expected arises from electrostriction. This effect is quadratic in the applied voltage, and as such will have the same frequency as the sought Mach effect. In fluids, electrostriction is displayed as a volumetric effect. In solids it is a little more complicated. It is usually a contraction in the direction of the applied field and a coupled expansion in the directions orthogonal to the applied field. It is worth remarking that whereas the piezoelectric effect has an inverse – that a mechanical deformation of the material will induce a voltage across the faces of the stressed dielectric – the electrostrictive effect, being quadratic in the voltage and not depending on the polarization of the material, does not.

The chief thing to keep in mind about electromechanical effects is that they produce either an expansion or contraction of the dielectric material in the capacitors. They do not produce a fluctuation in the mass of the
capacitors. Since the capacitors are clamped by the two accelerometers and “float” between them, expansions or contractions of the dielectric will affect the accelerometers equally. Accordingly, to the extent that the
accelerometers are matched in their responses, electromechanical effects in the capacitors will produce accelerometer signals that are the same. As a result, these signals will be removed by the differencing affected by the instrumentation amplifier. Moreover, as long as preload compression of the accelerometers and capacitors, and acceleration induced forces do not produce non-linear behavior, there is no reason to expect piezoelectric signals to depend on rotation of the device.

In the case of electrostriction, ferroelectric materials are known to sometimes display dependence on the extent of the compression of the material. While the chief compressional force on the capacitors is due to the preloading of the assembly with the lock-nut on the rotor arm bolt, rotation will induce a rotation frequency dependent loading force that will compress the capacitors further. The presence and sign of any compressional effect can be determined, however, with a simple static loading test carried out with clamps like those shown in Figure 5.

The result of a static loading test depends, for a particular array of capacitors, on how much preload is applied and how heavy the clamping force is. In the case of the capacitors shown in the figures here, with the usual preload, increasing the clamping force led to increases in the 0 Hz rotation, 80 KHz net accelerometer signal.  It is worth remarking, though, that the clamping force is larger than the force expected from the acceleration of the inner accelerometer and its backing washer.

Aside from electrostriction, the only electromechanical signal present at the double frequency of the voltage waveform driving signal is any second harmonic that might be present in that signal. This is easily detected by performing a power spectrum analysis of the applied voltage. And distortion in that signal can be suppressed by filtering the signal with a high power passive filter. But, in any event, like piezoelectric effects (at half the frequency), such signals should not produce pronounced effects after the differencing process (as they affect the accelerometers equally), and they should be insensitive to the rotation frequency of the device. Reality is more complicated in that the differencing process is not ideally exact. But the insensitivity to rotation for these signals can be checked by monitoring the amplitude of the residual signal at the base frequency of 40 KHz. It is rotation independent.

In practice, one should be prepared to detect any, and perhaps all of the signals discussed here. Unwanted signals can be suppressed by the techniques mentioned above, but their complete elimination may prove difficult, if not impossible.

Scaling:

The chief scalings worth mentioning are capacitor voltage frequency and capacitor voltage amplitude. We ignore capacitor voltage frequency as this has not yet been explored as the power circuit is tuned to a particular frequency that is not easily changed. As far as capacitor voltage amplitude scaling is concerned, the dependence is on the power (actually, the time-derivative of the power), and that is equal to the product of the voltage and current in the capacitors. Since the current is proportional to the voltage, the dependence turns out to be the square of the voltage.  Alas, this is the same scaling as that expected for electrostrictive effects. So, while checking for expected scaling should be done to make sure that any signal found passes this test, the test cannot be used to demonstrate the unique nature of any signals found. Nonetheless, though both effects scale with the square of the capacitor voltage, they are discriminable. It turns out that the time-derivative of the power and the square of the voltage, relative to the exciting voltage signal are anti-phase with respect to each other. So these effects compete with, rather than abet each other.  This means that if the dependences of these two signals on rotation frequency are different and their amplitudes are roughly comparable, then one may expect to see complex amplitude and phase behavior of the composite signal due to the two effects as the rotation frequency is changed. This type of behavior, in fact, is not difficult to produce."

Update: Added a slide for clarification of the data plots that now show the spin up and spin-down hysteresis effects, and a second slide that shows how the centripetal gee calculations were determined.
« Last Edit: 01/01/2011 02:50 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1045 on: 01/01/2011 05:56 PM »
Thanks for the ton of data. Re. the y-axis on the graphs: is this an absolute amplitude? If the sign flipped, would we see it on this plot? Reason I ask is because it's said that electrostriction works in antiphase to M-E. It is this assertion that I'm hanging on to in order to come up with possible interpretations of this data. If M-E begins to dominate at higher rotational frequencies, and the antiphase conjecture is correct, and the y-axis is absolute, then a dip such as is observed in the data is to be expected. What confounds me, assuming all the above assumptions are met, is that the y-amplitude appears to then level off at yet higher rotational frequencies. Unfortunately there are only a couple of datapoints after the dip, and the error bars are rather huge. Ambiguity rules here. Obviously one expects the M-E to dominate in this regime and take the y-axis plot nonlinearly upwards. But it does not.

Forgive me for not seeing clear signs of M-E in this data. Perhaps you're seeing something I don't?
« Last Edit: 01/01/2011 06:01 PM by deltaMass »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1046 on: 01/02/2011 05:07 AM »
Thanks for the ton of data. Re. the y-axis on the graphs: is this an absolute amplitude? If the sign flipped, would we see it on this plot? Reason I ask is because it's said that electrostriction works in antiphase to M-E. It is this assertion that I'm hanging on to in order to come up with possible interpretations of this data. If M-E begins to dominate at higher rotational frequencies, and the antiphase conjecture is correct, and the y-axis is absolute, then a dip such as is observed in the data is to be expected. What confounds me, assuming all the above assumptions are met, is that the y-amplitude appears to then level off at yet higher rotational frequencies. Unfortunately there are only a couple of datapoints after the dip, and the error bars are rather huge. Ambiguity rules here. Obviously one expects the M-E to dominate in this regime and take the y-axis plot nonlinearly upwards. But it does not.

Forgive me for not seeing clear signs of M-E in this data. Perhaps you're seeing something I don't?


deltaMass:

"Re. the y-axis on the graphs: is this an absolute amplitude? If the sign flipped, would we see it on this plot?"

The Y-axis plot is in Volts dB (20 log x) referenced to 1.0 Volt.  I'm also the attaching the static loading test data pdf file for your reference.
Star-Drive

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: M-E verification
« Reply #1047 on: 01/06/2011 09:58 PM »
What's required to verify the M-E theory (and that's the only thing that matters right now) is a direct confirmation of mass fluctuations. Perhaps we could discuss how best to do this experimentally. Perhaps people will be inspired to build stuff as a result.

DeltaMass:

Woodward has already demonstrated the existence of mass fluctuations in his 2008-to-2009 mass fluctuation rotary test series that demonstrated the need for concurrent dP/dt AND bulk acceleration signals required to create a well above the noise delta mass signature.  So some independent lab needs to replicate these results.  The Mark-III rotary tests in question are summarized by Woodward in the attached pdf file from the summer of 2009.  There is lots more data available, but it takes tens of MB to transmit.  Also note that the video files mentioned in this summary were only on the web for ~60 days due to the nature of the free video archiving service in question.  Woodward is notoriously cheap...

How is one to separate the electrostriction signal from the purported M-E signal in this data? I see no analysis which demonstrates this.


DeltaMass:

Find attached Woodward's latest 2010 analysis on the 2009 rotary data set.  I grabbed an earlier 2009 version last night that did not address the electrostriction issue very much.  The main thing one has to keep in mind though in regards to separating the M-E delta mass signal at 2-omega, (2X the drive frequency), and the electrostriction signal that is also expressed at 2-omega, is the fact that they are 180 degrees out of phase with each other, AND the fact they follow different scaling rules verses the applied radial bulk acceleration.  That is why Woodward archived the video clips of the dynamic oscilloscope traces of the cap-ring's 1- and 2-omega signals that showed these amplitude and phase shifts as the RPM and thus the bulk acceleration of the cap-ring were varied from 0-gess up to 811 gees at 60 revolutions per second (3,600 RPM).

Slightly off-topic and out of left field, but this makes me wonder whether (tiny) mass fluctuation traces might appear in hard disks, when writing to disk.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1048 on: 01/07/2011 03:04 AM »
Probably not. According to the theory, the mass fluctuations only exhibit when you have both changing acceleration & quickening(time derivative of acceleration) and when you have changing energy in the same volume. It's a condition that virtually never reliably exists in nature, which is convenient as an explanation for why we've never seen evidence of it in nature.

Hard disks meet the acceleration criteria but not the changing energy one.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1049 on: 01/08/2011 04:08 PM »
Probably not. According to the theory, the mass fluctuations only exhibit when you have both changing acceleration & quickening(time derivative of acceleration) and when you have changing energy in the same volume. It's a condition that virtually never reliably exists in nature, which is convenient as an explanation for why we've never seen evidence of it in nature.

Hard disks meet the acceleration criteria but not the changing energy one.

The changing energy criteria I thought would be as the domains were flipped by the write head's magnetic field. Whether that qualifies as a net energy change in terms of G/I reaction I don't know.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2011 04:10 PM by Lampyridae »
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline MP99

Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1050 on: 01/08/2011 06:14 PM »
If the disk head is carrying write currents, the head will be almost static - ie holding itself over the track that is being written. The underlying disk is rotating pretty fast, but that's irrelevant.

Disk heads move pretty fast between writes, but then they will not be carrying write currents.

From first principals, I'd expect any read current during head movements to be much lower.

cheers, Martin

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1051 on: 01/09/2011 12:59 AM »
Probably not. According to the theory, the mass fluctuations only exhibit when you have both changing acceleration & quickening(time derivative of acceleration) and when you have changing energy in the same volume. It's a condition that virtually never reliably exists in nature, which is convenient as an explanation for why we've never seen evidence of it in nature.

Hard disks meet the acceleration criteria but not the changing energy one.

The changing energy criteria I thought would be as the domains were flipped by the write head's magnetic field. Whether that qualifies as a net energy change in terms of G/I reaction I don't know.

The actual work done in flipping the domain is clearly going to have a transient change in E. But it's a tiny amount of energy over a minuscule volume (if it wasn't laptops would never carry harddrives), it won't properly match the acceleration changes, and as a result it  won't be remotely noticeable.

I think you need a rapidly varying potential field across the mass that is meeting the acceleration criteria, Which pretty much means a capacitor. I was thinking a high-energy solid laser should also work, but there's actually no uniform field or even coherent beam inside the solid part, so that doesn't work either.

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1052 on: 01/15/2011 08:19 AM »
How important are the resonance effects in propellantless field propulsion?

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1053 on: 01/28/2011 12:58 PM »
All:

When conversing with Jim Woodward and a friend of his last night, Dr. Woodward made the following observation worth noting about the Mach-Effect (M-E) and GRT in general.


"The real problem in understanding Mach effects, I suspect, can be traced to a fundamental definition that almost no one (other than those who have had to worry through stuff like this) really appreciates.  It is a distinction that, to my knowledge, is only addressed at any length in simple terms by Taylor and Wheeler in Spacetime Physics (pp 208-209).  It is the difference between invariants, conserved quantities, and "constants".  Almost everyone sloppily refers to the speed of light as a "constant".  But as all familiar with the details of GRT know, this is wrong.  The speed of light is actually a "locally measured invariant".

Why does this matter?  Because for inertial reaction forces to be independent of location and epoch, phi/c^2 must be a constant.  And since c is a "locally measured invariant", so too must phi be one.  Locally measured invariants, as measured by different observers, can vary from place to place and time to time, but locally measured they cannot.  This means that time-dependent terms in dynamical equations can have non-zero values, whereas were c a "constant" they might not.  This distinction is the one that leads to Mach effects from the timelike part of the four momentum when differentiated to get the four force and so on.

I might add that even experienced general relativists can get this wrong (as at least one did in my experience, though when pointed out, he immediately acceded to the correct version).

As to the problem of explaining this to non-relativists, what you are asking for, I think, is the analog of the quantum vacuum model as a sea of virtual particles fliting into and out of existence (which, by the way, as an exclusive model is wrong).  There is no equivalent, easily visualized model for Mach effects that I know of.  Lots of people have tried to come up with one.  In my judgement, none have succeeded.  I wish it were otherwise, as getting non-relativists interested would be much easier if such a model existed.  Sigh. . . ."
Star-Drive

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1054 on: 01/28/2011 01:06 PM »
Thanks for pointing this out, Paul. It does clear up a lot of questions.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1055 on: 01/29/2011 05:31 PM »
Paul, this may look idiotic, considering there are so many variables still unknown, but feel free to use wild guesses if you want.


Do you guys have some sort of roadmap for ME Effect?

I mean... supposing that it IS real (and you probably have seen enough to believe it), how much time would you expect until you can prove it beyond doubt to the scientific community... how much time until the first applications start being produced (like a small thruster for the ISS and other satellites), how much time should we expect before we can see ships REALLY moved by it?

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1056 on: 01/30/2011 05:22 AM »
Paul, this may look incorrect, considering there are so many variables still unknown, but feel free to use wild guesses if you want.

Do you guys have some sort of roadmap for ME Effect?

I mean... supposing that it IS real (and you probably have seen enough to believe it), how much time would you expect until you can prove it beyond doubt to the scientific community... how much time until the first applications start being produced (like a small thruster for the ISS and other satellites), how much time should we expect before we can see ships REALLY moved by it?

Aces-High:

Semi-educated wild guesses I can give you for the rollout of M-E tech once we are in development mode per the attached slide I did for the NASA/JSC AIAA technical Symposium back in May of 2009.  As to when we will have an independent verification on the existenance of the M-E's mass fluctuations, that's up to the R&D community taking seriously the work of Dr. Woodward.  So far we've had only one DOE hit job back in 2000 with no other takers since then.  So my goal is to make an M-E recycled propellant thruster over the next 6-months that can't be ignored any longer.  As to the first small commerical M-E thruster for satellite station keeping, I'd say it would be around 2 years after the demo thruster hits the news.   Pass that milestone, see the attached chart for what could come over the next century if the M-E is real and engineerable as we think it may be.  And yes, given a commerical M-E thruster by 2015, I would expect my WarpStar-1 M-E lunar vehicle to fly 5-to-7 years later*. 

BTW, if you've not read my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper, that's the LOX/H2 fuel cell powered and M-E propelled vehicle that can lift off from the surface of the Earth, fly to the surface of the Moon in 4-to-6 hours time, and then off-load a payload of 2,000 kg and a crew of 2.  Then without refueling, head back to Earth with another 2,000 kg of payload and crew of 2 and be back where it started in another 4-to-6 hours, maintaining 1.0 gee "Torchship" like acceleration all the way coming and going.  And that is just the introductory capabilities of the M-E...

* NOTE: Only if a motivated outfit like Space-X is performing the design and build.  If NASA gets its hands on the WarpStar-1 project, it will take decades...

Best,

(Added Note)
« Last Edit: 01/30/2011 02:25 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1057 on: 01/30/2011 03:04 PM »
I won't be alive then :(

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 188
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1058 on: 01/30/2011 03:24 PM »
Your kids ought to. How'd that stack up as an inspiration, while growing up?  Actual space ships and settlements.
« Last Edit: 01/30/2011 03:25 PM by Cinder »
The pork must flow.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1059 on: 01/30/2011 04:43 PM »
I won't be alive then :(

how do you know??? Do you think humans will only make progress in propulsion tech??

there are scientists on medicine fields that predict the first human that will live to the age of 150 (unless you area christian fundamentalist and believe that Mathusalem, Adam and Eve, Abraham, etc, lived more than 500 years old) IS ALREADY 60 years old. (meaning, he will live until 2100)

I am 30 years old, if predictions come true, I might live until 2150 or later... as long as technology improves faster than I age (and that I dont die from an accident, or some natural catastrophe)

Tags: