Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 666572 times)

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2506
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1220 on: 03/21/2011 11:42 AM »
Maybe... but the loading is completely different. Unless a turbofan was needed to provide the electicity (actually not that unlikely), the shape would need to change, because the thrusters themselves would not distribute the loads the way the wing does. i.e. the thruster is a single "chunk" giving you lift... you pretty much would have to replace the wings with attachment to the thrusters in order to make the loading on the body work out.

Of course it never hurts to have a "backup" method of flying...which is probably why warpstar-1 looks like it is designed to return from orbit passively if needed..

I wasn't imagining a 1:1 swap, merely that many of the requirements for an air or space craft will carry over. e.g.

Navigation
Communication
Control
Electrical Power
Pressurization
Safety
Passenger & baggage handling
etc

Offline kurt9

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1221 on: 03/21/2011 02:47 PM »
The most significant change that M-E thrusters would have on aircraft design is that they would allow for vertical take-off and landing, or at least short runway use. Planes would still have wings, however.

The other option for long distance flight is to have smaller wings and have the craft ascend mostly vertically and to flight at Mach 3 at 60 miles altitude to the destination. This makes Mach 3 travel easy and with no turbulence. Shorter flights, like from Seattle to SoCal would cruise at conventional altitudes (40,000 ft) but could take off and land vertically.

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 456
  • Liked: 154
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1222 on: 03/21/2011 03:30 PM »
craft ascend mostly vertically and to flight at Mach 3 at 60 miles altitude to the destination. This makes Mach 3 travel easy and with no turbulence.

 Nice description, with my limited understanding of this technology I am struggling to see a path forward to these capabilities.
 My question is can anyone help with a design that results in an experimental vehicle, admittedly small scale, to demonstrate flight capability?
 I have been following this thread long enough to know a rechargeable toothbrush contains battery, power management and signal conditioning (suitable?) to construct an experiment. What shape should be designed and built? The toothbrush suggests a "rocket-like" shape but how/where to locate the capacitors? Would a small scale demonstrator be better off with a lifting body shape or possibly long glider type wings?
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1223 on: 03/21/2011 09:29 PM »
As for "more to show for it", the level of effect we are seeing in the data to date is big enough that if we were instead measuring global warming, even the coal companies would agree its happening, and trillions of dollars would be budgeted to the problem. There are agenda driven reasons why certain entities deny the Mach Effect is real. It is more lucrative to make space launch as expensive as possible, or so they think, ignoring the fact that the automotive business has made far more money than the horse and buggy industry ever made. But not a single horse buggy maker ever successfully became an automobile manufacturer.

Well it's not just certain industries that deny the mach effect, it's also scientists. These are the people that need convincing if M-E physics is ever going to be taken seriously.

By the way, since this is the "Propellantless Field Propulsion" thread, perhaps this is the appropriate place to post up Hauser & Droscher's presentation on Extended Heim Theory that was posted on physforum:

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=AWEP51EV

Offline mikorangester

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1224 on: 03/25/2011 03:07 AM »
In spirit of keeping this thread alive,

It's just occurred to me that Woodward has been experimenting with his Mach Effect conjecture since the early 90's...is there some kind of technical hurdle that's making this effect difficult to reliably generate? After 15+ years, you would think we would have more to show for it.

Well it's not like he's operating on any grant money here. Its all being financed by his retirement salary, and hampered by his current health problems with his kidneys, etc.

As for "more to show for it", the level of effect we are seeing in the data to date is big enough that if we were instead measuring global warming, even the coal companies would agree its happening, and trillions of dollars would be budgeted to the problem. There are agenda driven reasons why certain entities deny the Mach Effect is real. It is more lucrative to make space launch as expensive as possible, or so they think, ignoring the fact that the automotive business has made far more money than the horse and buggy industry ever made. But not a single horse buggy maker ever successfully became an automobile manufacturer.

You've hit the nail on the head. Excellent opinion. I wonder if NASA will die because of these vested interests.

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1225 on: 03/25/2011 04:42 PM »
This is nonsense. The level of the observed effect is not an issue, the level of effect compared to calculated predictions and clear alternative explanations is. As is the extraordinary noise you have to sift through to see any "effect" at all. That is supposedly an artifact of the madnitude of the observed effect.

Just because climate "science" is dominated by agenda-driven folks with poor statistical skills and yes, bad science, does not validate ME experiments. The only thing that will validate woodward's ideas is if the observed effect can be increased in magnitude to the point that it clearly and convincingly demolishes alternative explanations.

Anything else is spitballing.

Offline mikorangester

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1226 on: 03/26/2011 02:48 AM »
This is nonsense. The level of the observed effect is not an issue, the level of effect compared to calculated predictions and clear alternative explanations is. As is the extraordinary noise you have to sift through to see any "effect" at all. That is supposedly an artifact of the madnitude of the observed effect.

Just because climate "science" is dominated by agenda-driven folks with poor statistical skills and yes, bad science, does not validate ME experiments. The only thing that will validate woodward's ideas is if the observed effect can be increased in magnitude to the point that it clearly and convincingly demolishes alternative explanations.

Anything else is spitballing.

I've come to the conclusion that statements such as these come from one of two camps.
1. Vested interest
2. Opinions without cause (the unknowlegeable?)

The first camp I feel is rational because they try to protect their 'engine', the one that makes them cash for as long as time exists - or so their short term rationality tells them - and its fair if one is part of a greater industry and one only a part of it. However it is irrational when if one looks at it from the point of view of other similar technologies of their time ie the steam engine against the combustion engine (I am sure they had their wags), or the gas light against the incandescent light bulb, or the myriad of other examples. What is required is more government investment in advanced technologies to help the industry along its way towards better technologies. If not, commercial industry will stay stuck in their pre-invested positions and will not move. By the way, the technology works and is showing to be more efficient than current technologies even though its in its infancy - a sign of a significantly better technology. Compare the IT industry of today to that of the 1970's. One is commercially viable and vibrant, the other only islands dotted on a government landscape.

The other camp, well they read what vested interest has to say and because the VI have invested so much in illiteracy, it seems believable.

As to the climate thing. All I need to do is look out my window and see how dirty my atmosphere has become. I recall being able to see the milky-way (only barely) when I was young. Now i would be lucky to see a handful of stars. Or what about having a look at  snap-shots of the Amazon jungle from the 70's till now. Not much left. What about depletion of the fish resources, depletion of bio-diversity etc etc. The list is endless.

Offline MP99

Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1227 on: 03/26/2011 06:06 PM »
As to the climate thing. All I need to do is look out my window and see how dirty my atmosphere has become. I recall being able to see the milky-way (only barely) when I was young. Now i would be lucky to see a handful of stars.

You can't see CO2 or CH4, and particulates cause cooling...

cheers, Martin

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1228 on: 03/26/2011 07:27 PM »

I've come to the conclusion that statements such as these come from one of two camps.
1. Vested interest
2. Opinions without cause (the unknowlegeable?)

3. Knowledgeable yet unvested. I've read ALL the M-E literature over the last 4 years. Have you? I stick with this thread because of the hope that a way will be found to demonstrate that it is true, not in a hopeless effort to prevent progress.
Quote

What is required is more government investment in advanced technologies to help the industry along its way towards better technologies. If not, commercial industry will stay stuck in their pre-invested positions and will not move. By the way, the technology works and is showing to be more efficient than current technologies even though its in its infancy - a sign of a significantly better technology. Compare the IT industry of today to that of the 1970's. One is commercially viable and vibrant, the other only islands dotted on a government landscape.



This quote shows you are clueless on how markets and innovation work.

Quote

The other camp, well they read what vested interest has to say and because the VI have invested so much in illiteracy, it seems believable.

VI?
Quote

As to the climate thing. All I need to do is look out my window and see how dirty my atmosphere has become. I recall being able to see the milky-way (only barely) when I was young. Now i would be lucky to see a handful of stars. Or what about having a look at  snap-shots of the Amazon jungle from the 70's till now. Not much left. What about depletion of the fish resources, depletion of bio-diversity etc etc. The list is endless.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1229 on: 03/26/2011 08:33 PM »
Quote
Opinions without a cause.

Personally, I'm a rebel without a clue...
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1230 on: 03/26/2011 09:27 PM »
I stick with this thread because of the hope that a way will be found to demonstrate that it is true, not in a hopeless effort to prevent progress.


Speaking of which...what's the main hurdle right now for making an M-E demonstrator; be it one floating over an air hockey table or the pendulum demonstration?

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1231 on: 03/26/2011 10:55 PM »
I stick with this thread because of the hope that a way will be found to demonstrate that it is true, not in a hopeless effort to prevent progress.


Speaking of which...what's the main hurdle right now for making an M-E demonstrator; be it one floating over an air hockey table or the pendulum demonstration?

GeeGee:

Simple, daily distractions, the amount of lab work required overcoming the M-E skeptics' issues, but primarily the subtleties of the M-E physics as applied to real-world materials.  In other words if this was going to be easy, it would have already been done!  However my next contribution to this saga should come sometime this summer.  And Woodward continues to accumulate supporting M-E data with his on-going PZT-Stack weight loss experiments that are hopefully demonstrating the M-E wormhole term's existence.
Star-Drive

Offline mikorangester

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1232 on: 03/27/2011 03:29 AM »

I've come to the conclusion that statements such as these come from one of two camps.
1. Vested interest
2. Opinions without cause (the unknowlegeable?)

3. Knowledgeable yet unvested. I've read ALL the M-E literature over the last 4 years. Have you? I stick with this thread because of the hope that a way will be found to demonstrate that it is true, not in a hopeless effort to prevent progress.
Quote

What is required is more government investment in advanced technologies to help the industry along its way towards better technologies. If not, commercial industry will stay stuck in their pre-invested positions and will not move. By the way, the technology works and is showing to be more efficient than current technologies even though its in its infancy - a sign of a significantly better technology. Compare the IT industry of today to that of the 1970's. One is commercially viable and vibrant, the other only islands dotted on a government landscape.



This quote shows you are incorrect on how markets and innovation work.

Quote

The other camp, well they read what vested interest has to say and because the VI have invested so much in illiteracy, it seems believable.

VI?
Quote

As to the climate thing. All I need to do is look out my window and see how dirty my atmosphere has become. I recall being able to see the milky-way (only barely) when I was young. Now i would be lucky to see a handful of stars. Or what about having a look at  snap-shots of the Amazon jungle from the 70's till now. Not much left. What about depletion of the fish resources, depletion of bio-diversity etc etc. The list is endless.

Well I've worked with industry for quite a few years now and I know for a fact that few if any commercial industries do private R&D without government support.

As to the proof of propellantless propulsion - check out www.emdrive.com . No need for more theory, it works in reality.

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1233 on: 03/27/2011 01:07 PM »
What industry is that? Carbon sequestering?

This is the King Canute school of innovation--government orders research in an area, and so it advances!

Like their orders on MPG efficiency, toilet flush size, lightbulb technology, the main purpose of massive government r&d focus is massive market distortion

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1234 on: 03/28/2011 05:37 AM »
what? EM Drive works in reality? Says who? The guys from STEORN?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1235 on: 03/28/2011 08:29 PM »
From the EMdrive website Flight Program:  They get 326mN/kW.  The chart that they show the nineteen test runs has most of the tests in about the 350 watt range, which tells me that they got about 326 times .35 equals 114mN of thrust.  That video of their thruster spinning the test article thru say ninety degrees of rotation on its friction free bearing purports to show that they are able to convert electrical energy to thrust, without expelling propellant.  You can see that the test article is mounted on a massive rack with an external power supply, which would add more mass, if you wanted to consider the emdrive as self contained.

One could compare 114mN of thrust with the 12.5MN thrust associated with the SRB.  OK.  That's a mite unfair.

So, to even up the comparison a bit, consider the Hall Effect thruster.  Per wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect_thruster , they report "Devices operating at 1.35 kW produce about 83 mN of thrust. "

Clearly, per the Emdrive claims, they are getting a bit more thrust per kW than a Hall Effect thruster, and that level of thrust seems to be useful, the way I read it.  But all of the boxes have to be checked, and today, the Emdrive is a very massive experimental unit, not a flight article, I would say.

I guess what they need to do is miniturize that sucker?  But if you search back in the depths of this thread (use the Print function to put the whole thread on the screen; search for shawyer, May of '09) my recollection is that it is thought that the theory for this device is flawed.  So what gives?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8102
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2879
  • Likes Given: 687
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1236 on: 03/28/2011 10:43 PM »
When it comes to EMDrive there's only two possibilities:

* It doesn't work and the guy is a fraud or at least delusional
* It does work and the guy is so incompetent that he can't even raise the capital to make a flight article

Either way, nothing is going to result from it.

Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline mikorangester

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1237 on: 03/29/2011 03:12 AM »
When it comes to EMDrive there's only two possibilities:

* It doesn't work and the guy is a fraud or at least delusional
* It does work and the guy is so incompetent that he can't even raise the capital to make a flight article

Either way, nothing is going to result from it.



Hence one knows when there is someone with a vested interest in denouncing what is clearly the path to space. Emdrive is a working system. Anyone who had put even a little thought as to why it works would agree. The experiment more importantly proves that it works. And even NASA agrees that it works.

Nothing will result if the people selling rocket technology or those wanting a limited life for satellites get their way. But it would be a step backwards for all of us, not only those in the space industry. Fortunately the Chinese see it as an advantage and are doing R&D on it. Furthermore, they seem to be strongly supported by their space enthusiast. I guess their space industry is not as developed as the one in the US?

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8102
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2879
  • Likes Given: 687
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1238 on: 03/29/2011 03:31 AM »
The experiment more importantly proves that it works. And even NASA agrees that it works.

Ignoring the fact that you're simply wrong for a moment, so what if it has?

Do you think the millions to billions of dollars required to make this functional are going to start flowing just because of a lab demonstration?

Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline mikorangester

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1239 on: 03/29/2011 09:12 AM »
The experiment more importantly proves that it works. And even NASA agrees that it works.

Ignoring the fact that you're simply wrong for a moment, so what if it has?

Do you think the millions to billions of dollars required to make this functional are going to start flowing just because of a lab demonstration?



Thank God then that the space industry has some competition coming from other nations. Might open the pipes a bit

Tags: