Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 665338 times)

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1020 on: 12/28/2010 08:28 AM »
ME Mass effect thrusters have not been debunked either - it's just hard to get any usable thrust at this early stage of development.

For zillionth time - at this point you do not need usable thrust! You need merely *detectable* thrust!

This will open up the field for many more people (and much more $$$) to look at the engineering problem of optimizing the technology and creating usable devices.

Until you have detectable thrust in an independently reproducible experiment, most people won't take you seriously.

Relax. It's just wordplay. Usable, detectable - same thing really.
I have not been following ME effect discussions - i've only been following the EM Drive.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1021 on: 12/28/2010 08:29 AM »
More importantly - the EMDrive is coming on leaps and bounds. An experimental flight thruster has been built and this paper http://www.emdrive.com/Toulouse2010paper01.doc states that boeing is involved in building it's own thruster.

it works with interaction with earths magnetic field?
No. Read the paper.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1022 on: 12/28/2010 06:32 PM »
Exactly what I'm saying. "You need to prove your claims". So far it is not done.

yes, but the fact they havent yet to prove their claims doesnt mean we should dismiss them automatically (just like we dont dismiss automatically string theory, dark matter, dark energy, etc, just because we cant prove those).

we should only dismiss stuff that we have the contrary proof: that they dont work, like Roger Shawyer´s EM Drive, where he couldnt even get his vectors right and because of that, on paper, he got a net force in one direction.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1023 on: 12/28/2010 07:42 PM »
as for ME Effect, can someone (maybe StarDrive) comment on this section of the Wikipedia article on Woodward Effect
The hypothesis is also related to the Nordtvedt effect proposed by Kenneth L. Nordtvedt from Montana State University, who observed that some theories of gravity suggest that massive bodies should fall at different rates depending upon their gravitational self-energy. This would violate the strong equivalence principle  that the laws of gravitation are independent of velocity and location, a principle considered fundamental by many theoretical physicists.[14] The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment has shown that if the Nordtvedt effect exists at all, it is extremely weak.

Aceshigh:

I'm not familiar with the Nordtvedt material you quote above, but I do know that Woodward's approach to Sciama's gravitational origins of inertia requires that the strong form of the GR equivalence principle be true for the M-E to exist.  That said, see the below to what I do know about what Nordtvedt had to say in support of Mach's principle.

See: http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/nord.htm

In partiuclar, read the the third paragraph down which I'll append below:

"Frame dragging is a clear Machian effect since rotation takes place with respect to the very distant matter in the universe.  In Newtonian gravity no frame dragging takes place because there are no gravitomagnetic effects.  And the almost universal opinion of even experts has been that gravitomagnetic effects are exceedingly small; so small that they have only very recently been detected.  In this connection, Nordtvedt quoted a National Academy of Sciences report of the mid-80s where it was claimed that, "At present there is no experimental evidence arguing for or against the existence of the gravitomagnetic effects predicted by general relativity. . . ."  One hears echoes of this view to this day.  Nordtvedt's point was that this is, simply put, wrong.  Gravitomagnetism is commonplace. A s he put it at the end of the introduction of his paper, "In summary, inertial frame 'dragging' -- both linear accelerative dragging and rotational 'Lence[sic.]-Thirring' dragging -- are ubiquitous in gravitational phenomena already observed and measured."  In section 5 of his paper, he ties these ideas up to Mach's ideas."

Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1024 on: 12/28/2010 07:54 PM »
I assume that how much force it can generate is still open to debate, and even them are trying to discover precisely how much force they can get out of the device/effect.

I think it all depends of how much mass differential they can create between the "pushed" and the "pulled" particles... and how fast they can "push" them.

Well, sort of.

The problem is not "from the physics, how much force can you get out of it?," the physics says the amount of force output would be proportional to things like input frequency and power.

But so what? It's the wrong question to ask, it's kind of like asking, ok, based on what we know the nuclear binding energy to be, how much power can you get from a nuclear fission reactor? And the answer to that question is, "well, how big is the reactor? What's the distribution of the fissionable fuel? Which isotopes are they? What's those isotopes asorption & fission cross sections"...and on and on. You could ask 200 questions trying to lock down some input parameters for the answer to be non-variable.

And this is the same way. The physics says, given an oscillating bulk acceleration of so much and an oscillating change in energy of so much and such frequency, within so much mass, you should get a mass variation of such at   such frequency . Add in a "push heavy /pull light" external forcing mechanism, and you will get unbalanced force of such and such .

So the better question to ask is, in terms of these physics, what is the art of the possible given existing materials?

Look back through this thread, Paul March does quite a bit of explaining of what parameters would need to be to set a thrust-to-weight of greater than 1. Although something seems to have changed recently with regard to how to actually construct a Mach Effect thruster. I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with that myself...

Merry Christmas everyone.

Tom:

"Although something seems to have changed recently with regard to how to actually construct a Mach Effect thruster.  I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with that myself..."

The "something" is the realization of the ironclad need for a non-zero bulk acceleration vector relative to the distant stars in the same direction as the M-E capacitor's applied electric field that creates the dP/dt signal if one wants to reliably create a delta-mass signature.  In the past, this requirement was not always met in the as-built M-E test-articles.  In the next few months, I plan to verify this requirement. 
Star-Drive

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1025 on: 12/28/2010 08:05 PM »
Exactly what I'm saying. "You need to prove your claims". So far it is not done.

yes, but the fact they havent yet to prove their claims doesnt mean we should dismiss them automatically (just like we dont dismiss automatically string theory, dark matter, dark energy, etc, just because we cant prove those).

we should only dismiss stuff that we have the contrary proof: that they dont work, like Roger Shawyer´s EM Drive, where he couldnt even get his vectors right and because of that, on paper, he got a net force in one direction.
Seriously - the EM Drive seems to be producing results. Boeing is involved. Technology transfer processes have occurred to bring the tech to the US. China has got into the act though that would be hard to verify. There is no contrary proof that has held up as yet, especially in the face of experiments to the contrary.Keep in mind - this is not a reactionless engine as is the basis of most people's rebuttals. The test article has produced motion - pretty hard to refute except by fraud.
I've studied the math and become convinced it is valid (maybe you are referring to an old paper that has been corrected? Or which bit of the paper is specifically wrong?).
I'm not 100% fanboy yet - but I do think there is something to it worth pursuing.It still needs proving beyond any doubt and I think an in-space test or a hover test will be required to turn peoples heads. I say stick one in a Dragon capsule and see what happens.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1026 on: 12/28/2010 10:58 PM »

Although something seems to have changed recently with regard to how to actually construct a Mach Effect thruster. I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with that myself...


The "something" is the realization of the ironclad need for a non-zero bulk acceleration vector relative to the distant stars in the same direction as the M-E capacitor's applied electric field that creates the dP/dt signal if one wants to reliably create a delta-mass signature.  In the past, this requirement was not always met in the as-built M-E test-articles.  In the next few months, I plan to verify this requirement. 


Was this an outcome of the "Mach Guitar" experiment?

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3030
  • Liked: 532
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1027 on: 12/28/2010 11:37 PM »
Relax. It's just wordplay. Usable, detectable - same thing really.

No, it is most certainly not the same thing.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3030
  • Liked: 532
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1028 on: 12/28/2010 11:41 PM »
Exactly what I'm saying. "You need to prove your claims". So far it is not done.

yes, but the fact they havent yet to prove their claims doesnt mean we should dismiss them automatically (just like we dont dismiss automatically string theory, dark matter, dark energy, etc, just because we cant prove those).

Did I say that it should be dismissed?

Note that "string theory, dark matter, dark energy" theorists expend a lot of efforts to find experimental proof of their theories.

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1029 on: 12/29/2010 02:55 AM »
Relax. It's just wordplay. Usable, detectable - same thing really.

No, it is most certainly not the same thing.
A detection is usable for the purposes of proof. Wordplay.
Anyhow - i'm not really interested in the rest of the discussion you are involved with, only the emdrive subject, which is also part of this thread. I don't know enough about Mach drive,or whatever it is, to get involved in any discussion there.
Theory and experiment is required, counter theory and counter experiments are required. Reality will fall out of that.
« Last Edit: 12/29/2010 02:57 AM by Nathan »
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1030 on: 12/29/2010 03:58 AM »
Exactly what I'm saying. "You need to prove your claims". So far it is not done.

yes, but the fact they havent yet to prove their claims doesnt mean we should dismiss them automatically (just like we dont dismiss automatically string theory, dark matter, dark energy, etc, just because we cant prove those).

we should only dismiss stuff that we have the contrary proof: that they dont work, like Roger Shawyer´s EM Drive, where he couldnt even get his vectors right and because of that, on paper, he got a net force in one direction.

String theory is apparently being indirectly proved via extrapolations to cosmological effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Mersini


Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1031 on: 12/29/2010 03:59 AM »

Although something seems to have changed recently with regard to how to actually construct a Mach Effect thruster. I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with that myself...


The "something" is the realization of the ironclad need for a non-zero bulk acceleration vector relative to the distant stars in the same direction as the M-E capacitor's applied electric field that creates the dP/dt signal if one wants to reliably create a delta-mass signature.  In the past, this requirement was not always met in the as-built M-E test-articles.  In the next few months, I plan to verify this requirement. 


Was this an outcome of the "Mach Guitar" experiment?

Tom:

No, it had nothing to do with John Cramer's M-E replication experiment.  It came about from talks within Woodward's M-E e-mail discussion group as we reviewed Woodward's pure delta-mass rotary data from the 2008 to 2009 time period, and while critiquing Woodward's SPESIF-2011 M-E Stargate paper where Woodward finally quantified the expected delta-mass signature for a given bulk acceleration input to the M-E dP/dt energy storing capacitor.
Star-Drive

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
M-E verification
« Reply #1032 on: 12/29/2010 08:36 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.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: M-E verification
« Reply #1033 on: 12/30/2010 03:22 AM »
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...
Star-Drive

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Re: M-E verification
« Reply #1034 on: 12/30/2010 03:30 AM »
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.

Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: M-E verification
« Reply #1035 on: 12/30/2010 03:30 AM »
...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...

Did the test only demonstrate that "concurrent dP/dt AND bulk acceleration signals" are needed for "a well above the noise delta mass signature"?  A direct reading of your post means that no such signals were demonstrated, only the need for them.  If its just a grammar mistake on your part, forgive my nitpicking.
Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: M-E verification
« Reply #1036 on: 12/30/2010 03:48 AM »
...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...

Did the test only demonstrate that "concurrent dP/dt AND bulk acceleration signals" are needed for "a well above the noise delta mass signature"?  A direct reading of your post means that no such signals were demonstrated, only the need for them.  If its just a grammar mistake on your part, forgive my nitpicking.

LegendCJS:

Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you, but the attached Woodward report clearly shows IMO that the the existence of the M-E mass fluctuation signal was demonstrated when the Mark-III rotary test rig's bulk acceleration was greater than ~300 gees at the capacitor ring radius, while the cap array voltage at ~40 kHz was over 4.0 kV-peak.  Does that answer your question?
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: M-E verification
« Reply #1037 on: 12/30/2010 11:28 AM »
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).
« Last Edit: 12/31/2010 10:56 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Online KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3474
  • Liked: 454
  • Likes Given: 115
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1038 on: 12/30/2010 12:43 PM »
We may be descending to semantics here. Im sure what was intended by demonstrated was demonstrated to the satisfaction of the wider scientific community. If it were demonstrated, t would be an accepted fact.

What we should be discussing is what are the hurdles before this wider acceptance is achieved. Without accounting for this, strong claims actually weaken the case. The stronger the effect that is claimed, the more glaring that the effect is not already widely accepted.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1039 on: 12/30/2010 04:13 PM »
We may be descending to semantics here. Im sure what was intended by demonstrated was demonstrated to the satisfaction of the wider scientific community. If it were demonstrated, t would be an accepted fact.

What we should be discussing is what are the hurdles before this wider acceptance is achieved. Without accounting for this, strong claims actually weaken the case. The stronger the effect that is claimed, the more glaring that the effect is not already widely accepted.

Kelvin:

Who knew "demonstrated" was such a contentious word!  I used it 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.  However, you have to remember that this is NOT the first M-E related experiment, but just one of the latest in a ~20 year history of same that have shown hit or miss successes in trying to build a propellantless propulsion engine.  Sorry for the confusion.

In regard to how to clear the hurdles to wider acceptance, it's simple; enough independent researchers have to be convinced to take on the replication challenge and costs surrounding them.  That is why Woodward's group is trying to build an M-E demonstrator that is so over the top that the effect could not be anything else other than the offered M-E.  Again it’s the chicken and egg problem...
Star-Drive

Tags: