Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 665300 times)

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1320 on: 06/12/2011 03:43 AM »
"Paul451" over at NBF claimed the measured effect is most likely due to a vibrating spring inertia illusion. Have you guys tested for this?
Currently we don't have the R&D budget to try this kind of experiment.

Best,   

I suppose then the only way to discard such vibrations as being ME effect is to create devices with stronger thrust. Of course, expensive, but much less than putting an ME device in space to test if it accelerates or not. There isnt much of an option here. If at stronger levels (milli newtons or a full newton) it maintains, not only it will be proved as budget will stop being a problem :)

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1321 on: 06/12/2011 03:17 PM »
"Paul451" over at NBF claimed the measured effect is most likely due to a vibrating spring inertia illusion. Have you guys tested for this?
Currently we don't have the R&D budget to try this kind of experiment.

Best,   

I suppose then the only way to discard such vibrations as being ME effect is to create devices with stronger thrust. Of course, expensive, but much less than putting an ME device in space to test if it accelerates or not. There isnt much of an option here. If at stronger levels (milli newtons or a full newton) it maintains, not only it will be proved as budget will stop being a problem :)

GeeGee:

Increasing the thrust levels of M-E based devices up to where my MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles were operating, i.e. in the 1.0 to 10.0 milli-Newton range would be a major step forward in proving the existence of the M-E, if performed under the more stringent test conditions already mentioned.  However, by using the M-E’s predicted thrust scaling rules, see attched slide for an example, that involve both input power magnitude and frequency effects, as demonstrated by the last 75 kHz to 45 kHz frequency sweep thrust data plot that I already supplied on this forum, allows one to filter out spurious phenomenon such as the proposed Dean Drive effect.  That is provided you are really trying to find and explain new phenomenon, instead of getting an ego trip out of maintaining the status-quo.  So in the end analysis, some of the M-E critics will use this kind of data to become convinced that the M-E is real and in need of development, but the majority of the critics will never be satisfied until we can float the M-E test article into the conference room.  And even then some will still claim it's a fraud or just magic trick because it doesn't fit their preconceived ideas of reality.  At that point though we don't care anymore what these critics think, for we will then be able to build my concept WarpStar Lunar and Mars transports, which has been my objective all along in this business.

Best,

Paul March
Star-Drive

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1322 on: 06/12/2011 07:41 PM »
So in the end analysis, some of the M-E critics will use this kind of data to become convinced that the M-E is real and in need of development, but the majority of the critics will never be satisfied until we can float the M-E test article into the conference room.  And even then some will still claim it's a fraud or just magic trick because it doesn't fit their preconceived ideas of reality.  At that point though we don't care anymore what these critics think, for we will then be able to build my concept WarpStar Lunar and Mars transports, which has been my objective all along in this business.

Best,

Paul March

Hopefully you guys get sufficient evidence by next year to get peoples attention and begin replication attempts.

Also, regarding Sebtal and GoatGuy's claims of apparent second law violations over at NBF: has Woodward ever addressed this in any of his papers? I'm quite familiar with the conversation of momentum argument (which has been addressed and refuted by Woodward) made against the Woodward/Mach effect, but this is the first time I've heard of it breaking the second law of thermodynamics.

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1323 on: 06/12/2011 07:46 PM »
Also, regarding Sebtal and GoatGuy's claims of apparent second law violations over at NBF: has Woodward ever addressed this in any of his papers? I'm quite familiar with the conversation of momentum argument (which has been addressed and refuted by Woodward) made against the Woodward/Mach effect, but this is the first time I've heard of it breaking the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is not broken if you view the universe as a whole, instead of just a small portion. Which is required when you use the Mach-effect.
JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1324 on: 06/12/2011 08:35 PM »


The second law of thermodynamics is not broken if you view the universe as a whole, instead of just a small portion. Which is required when you use the Mach-effect.

Here is the gist of Sebtal's argument (responding to the claim that the M-E might decrease the overall temperature of the universe)

"The theory from a mathematical standpoint doesn't have a provision for this decrease in temperature. By all means, if you can show from the equations that cosmic temperature decreases, by all means, the theory is then at least compliant. But if the theory doesn't have that in, and we have to randomly assume that the cosmic temperature decreases, then the only thing we have to tell us how and why the cosmic temperature should change as a response to this flywheel is "it must do so for Woodwards theory to be correct", and of course, there is no requirement that Woodwards theory be correct. If there is no mechanism for this temeprature change to occur within the theory itself, then the theory is not compliant with the second law and is in it's present formulation wrong, in which case, there is no particular reason to think this device is possible."

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1325 on: 06/12/2011 10:27 PM »
Nonsense, no theory is required in order to be valid to contain within it explanations for how every derivative question it raises is answered. Newton himself coildn't have passed that test.

How a woodward effect thruster transfers momentum, energy, or temperature is a derivative topic for future speculation once the effect is proven to exist, not a critical question to proving or disproving the existence of the effect. Science doesn't work that way. Otherwise Einstein would have had to prove how the cosmological constant works before SRT was accepted... And that obviously hasnt happened.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1326 on: 06/13/2011 02:55 AM »
The second law of thermodynamics is not broken if you view the universe as a whole, instead of just a small portion. Which is required when you use the Mach-effect.
Here is the gist of Sebtal's argument (responding to the claim that the M-E might decrease the overall temperature of the universe) "The theory from a mathematical standpoint doesn't have a provision for this decrease in temperature. By all means, if you can show from the equations that cosmic temperature decreases, by all means, the theory is then at least compliant. But if the theory doesn't have that in, and we have to randomly assume that the cosmic temperature decreases, then the only thing we have to tell us how and why the cosmic temperature should change as a response to this flywheel is "it must do so for Woodwards theory to be correct", and of course, there is no requirement that Woodwards theory be correct. If there is no mechanism for this temeprature change to occur within the theory itself, then the theory is not compliant with the second law and is in it's present formulation wrong, in which case, there is no particular reason to think this device is possible."


GeeGee:

I don't think Dr. Woodward has formally addressed the possible thermodynamic issues surrounding the Mach-Effect (M-E) yet, especially for a speculation that I put forward over at the Talk-Polywell Forum, and why should he have?  Cuddihy is correct IMO about not having to defend every possible aspect of a conjecture before it can be taken seriously. You first prove that there is an interesting phenomenon worth investigating further and then take it one step at a time from there. IMO Woodward has come very close to that goal already, but your mileage may vary.

Best,
« Last Edit: 06/13/2011 03:20 AM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1327 on: 06/24/2011 03:28 AM »
Nonsense, no theory is required in order to be valid to contain within it explanations for how every derivative question it raises is answered. Newton himself coildn't have passed that test.

How a woodward effect thruster transfers momentum, energy, or temperature is a derivative topic for future speculation once the effect is proven to exist, not a critical question to proving or disproving the existence of the effect. Science doesn't work that way. Otherwise Einstein would have had to prove how the cosmological constant works before SRT was accepted... And that obviously hasnt happened.

All:

You might find the two attached data slides from Dr. Woodward's ARC-Lite Torque Pendulum PZT-Stack Frequency Sweep data runs from last week of interest.  This Faraday shielded test article can be rotated on the end of the torque pendulum's arm so its thrust vector can be pointed left or right, or up and down between data runs.  Subtracting the L-R and U-D data runs then provides a true differential thrust product that has to be due to the internal forces generated in this Faraday shielded test article, running in ~1x10^-3 Torr Vacuum level.  This is the best data set yet out of Woodward's shop that defends the existence of his M-E conjecture.  If Woodward can get the amplitude of the PZT-Stack's thrust output increased by another order of magnitude, he can start running input power verses thrust output scaling rules to see if the observed data matches the M-E conjecture predictions. 

BTW, increasing the force output by an order of magnitude will most likely entail increasing the 1-omega and 2-omega operating frequencies of Woodward's power amplifiers by at least an order of magnitude above his current power amp's 60 kHz -6 dB power roll-off.  We are currently looking for a pair of inexpensive, (less than $2k each) LF/HF 500W, 10 kHz-to-5.0 MHz or so wideband width Piezoelectric/Laser driver power amps to replace Woodward's two current Carvin Audio amps.  If anybody has a lead on such items please let us know the source of same.

Best,

Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1328 on: 06/24/2011 05:06 AM »
But that can barely lift a sheet of paper :(

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1329 on: 06/24/2011 01:36 PM »
But that can barely lift a sheet of paper :(

Sith:

You first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an effect is real.  This data just about does that.  Then you grow the effect as you come to better understand it.  If the bulk of the M-E conjecture is correct, increasing the operating frequency from 60 kHz up to say 600 kHz should increase the output of these types of PZT-Stack devices up to 100 times.  The trick is then to get the acoustics phasing correct in the stack so their reflections collectively add, instead of subtracting.

Best,

Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1330 on: 06/24/2011 02:05 PM »
and to how much do you think the frequency can be increased? Mhz? Thz?

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1331 on: 06/24/2011 06:37 PM »
and to how much do you think the frequency can be increased? Mhz? Thz?

AcesHigh:

I already know that MLTs can be made to work at 2-to-4 MHz.  Past that my estimates are that MLT's can be made to work up to ~50 MHz using lumped parameter circuits.  Then we will have to transistion to VHF/UHF stripline and/or resonant cavity like components that can maximize the B-field production in the MLT caps.  Assuming that the M-E conjecture's  predicted MLT cubic frequency scaling still holds, and with the same 10W of RF input power at 2.20 MHz while increasing the operating frequency up to say 30.0 MHz, my MLT-2004's 4 milli-Newton thrust ouput could ramp up by a factor of (30/2.2)^3 = 2,536 * 4.0 milli-Newton = 10.14 Newton.  There is an engineering trick needed to do this, but I won't bore you with the details until I know that it really works myself.

Best,

Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1332 on: 06/24/2011 07:16 PM »
Quote
the B-field production in the MLT caps.  Assuming that the M-E conjecture's  predicted MLT cubic frequency scaling still holds

I wasn't aware that the scaling had been experimentally seen.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1333 on: 06/25/2011 01:59 AM »
Quote
the B-field production in the MLT caps.  Assuming that the M-E conjecture's  predicted MLT cubic frequency scaling still holds

I wasn't aware that the scaling had been experimentally seen.

Cuddihy:

Dr. Woodward demonstrated cap voltage cubic scaling of the M-E force output years ago with his early MLT work.  What hasn't been directly demonstrated yet is the predicted cubic scaling of the thrust output with increasing frequency at least not by Woodward.  That's because all these M-E devices use alternating voltages and currents that have preferred operating frequencies, i.e., they are not broadband devices that can be tuned to frequency X, 2X, 4X, etc.  In other words a new unit has to be built for each new operating frequency, a feat that has been beyond our current resources to do.  We do have some indications though that the M-E’s predicted MLT cubic frequency scaling for the delta mass signature does occur when you compare Woodard’s ~50 kHz PZT stack at ~100W results with my MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz data at 10W.  This is demonstrated by the fact that the cubic frequency to thrust output scaling factor between these two bodies of work is (2,200 kHz / 50 kHz)^3 = 85,184  * 10W/100W = 8,184 * 1.0 uN at 50 kHz = 8,184 uN at 2.2 MHz, which is only a factor of two higher than observed in the MLT-2004 and a factor of eight in the Mach-2 MHz.  Considering the difference in these PZT=Stack and MLT test articles, that an amazingly close correlation, but it won’t be clinched until we can take a broadband MLT and run it at 2.0 MHz and 4.0 MHz with the same input power and see if the thrust increases by the 2^3 = 8 factor. 

Oh wait minute, I may actually have performed this test when I ran the Faraday shielded Mach-2MHz at 2.15 MHz and then at 3.8 MHz during its first day of data runs.   My son Ryan and I observed an increase in its thrust from ~1.0 milli-Newton at 2.15 MHz and then noted that it went up to ~5.0 milli-Newton at 3.8 MHz with about the same input power.  The predicted M-E frequency thrust scaling for these MLT operating frequencies is (3.8 MHz /2.15 MHz)^3 = 5.53.   Well I’ll be dammed…

Best,

Paul M.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2011 02:01 AM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1334 on: 06/25/2011 03:36 AM »
Unrelated to the current discussion but....does Woodward have any plans to get one of his future papers published in a highly prestigious physics journal (i.e. Nature, Physics Review Letters, etc)?  It would definitely help him get noticed.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 865
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1335 on: 06/25/2011 04:18 AM »
Unrelated to the current discussion but....does Woodward have any plans to get one of his future papers published in a highly prestigious physics journal (i.e. Nature, Physics Review Letters, etc)?  It would definitely help him get noticed.

GeeGee:

Dr. Woodward follows his own path these days and is at a stage in his life that he is not interested in pursuing the publish or perish paradigm of a lot of academics.  As to his Stargate paper, he will probably just submit it to the Foundations of Physics Journal and let that be good enough.

Best,

Paul M. 
Star-Drive

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1336 on: 06/25/2011 07:47 PM »

GeeGee:

Dr. Woodward follows his own path these days and is at a stage in his life that he is not interested in pursuing the publish or perish paradigm of a lot of academics.  As to his Stargate paper, he will probably just submit it to the Foundations of Physics Journal and let that be good enough.

Best,

Paul M. 

That's definitely understandable. I bring this up because it seemed to have worked for D-Wave systems (the company claiming to have the world's first functioning quantum computer). Scott Aaranson, their biggest critic, announced his retirement as "D-Wave's chief skeptic" after they published their paper in Nature. Of course, D-Wave has a much less controversial claim in comparison to Woodward, and I don't think Woodward really has a "chief skeptic."

By the way, several pages back I posted this criticism I found on physicsforums.com when I did a search for Dennis Sciama, but no one responded. Keep in mind this person (a physicist, presumably) who wrote this seems to be a proponent of Sciama's vector theory of gravity.

"After reading the patent and some of the other material, in particular the paper "MACH’S PRINCIPLE, MASS FLUCTUATIONS, AND RAPID SPACETIME TRANSPORT" linked from Woodward's web site, I'm extremely sceptical.

In Special Relativity, all four components of four-momentum (that is, energy and linear momentum) are locally conserved at the microscopic level, with an equation of continuity. This also applies locally within GR, and is thought to apply on a larger scale too although there is some difficulty in describing this in GR because gravitational energy cannot be localized in a unique way.

It is certainly true that local conservation rules do NOT apply to rest mass, but Newton's law applies to total energy rather than rest mass, so this isn't relevant.

What may not be immediately clear is that this means that if energy is supplied to something by any means, regardless of whether it is via wires, pipes, axles, fields or whatever, then any change in energy or momentum must flow through that route.

For example, if you look up "dipole gravity" you'll find that many years ago Eue Jin Jeong had an idea that if you spin up a hemispherical object around its axis of symmetry, you will shift the center of mass slightly along the axis because of relativistic considerations. (This can be better illustrated by considering an axle with two wheels on it of the same mass but different radii, so one gets more rotational kinetic energy than the other as the rotation rate increases). It is true that the center of mass of the system shifts, but if you use Special Relativity to analyze the details of how the torque is applied through the axis, you will find that if the assembly were free to slide along its axis, it would shift to keep the center of mass in the same place, and a force has to be applied to prevent that from happening, so there is no overall shift of the center of mass. (However, Eue Jin Jeong has ignored this analysis and is now apparently trying to profit from this idea).

Similarly, I think Woodward must be ignoring some part of the energy or momentum flow to achieve his result. For example, it appears that he thinks that there is a loophole related to dm/dt terms in Newton's law. However, this isn't relevant, because the microscopic conservation of four-momentum is exact, and even if the calculations in difficult cases involve extra terms, these cancel out when you consider the flow of energy from one described system to another.

Similar ideas relating to unbalanced forces in sufficiently complex systems such as gyroscopes have been presented many times before (such as in the "Dean Drive" and ideas from Eric Laithwaite). In each case, a complex calculation appears to show unbalanced terms. However, as four-momentum is locally conserved, any such effect must be due to an incomplete or incorrect calculation, even if it is very difficult to find a specific error.

This means that if there is any possibility of some propellantless drive, it cannot arise from combining existing physical effects in a new complicated way, as all of those physical effects are known to be subject to the local conservation rules. It can only arise from new physics."



I'm not very educated in physics (computer science/math student) so I can't really comment on his technical arguments, but the phrase "combining physical effects in a new complicated way" seems suspicious. From what little I understand of the theory, transient mass fluctuations is a novel effect, not a combination of known physical effects (though there isn't really any new physics, besides the incorporation of Mach's principle into GR).


Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1337 on: 06/25/2011 10:18 PM »
In Eue Jin Jeong's case, the experiments very clearly show his theory to be invalid (i.e., there is no observed change in Cm).

In Woodward's case, not so. Clearly "something" happens to cause a net force -- it's just not sufficiently large yet in comparison to the level of noise or other  incidental effects (thermal or electrostrictive effects being the main conventional suspects) to be certain that what is happening is a new effect, or just a hard-to-discern conventional effect that appears at the "right" times.

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 #1338 on: 06/27/2011 03:16 PM »
Quote
Nonsense, no theory is required in order to be valid to contain within it explanations for how every derivative question it raises is answered. Newton himself coildn't have passed that test.

True, but the objection was not asking for an explanation of all derivative questions.  The poster asked for an explanation of one question, regarding temperature change.

Quote
If there is no mechanism for this temeprature change to occur within the theory itself, then the theory is not compliant with the second law...
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1339 on: 06/27/2011 10:42 PM »
False syllogism. The theory does not have to contain within it a mechanism for temperature transfer consistent with the second law, in order for the theory to be valid; it merely must describe a situation (or condition) that does not exclude such a mechanism, which as far as I can tell it meets.

To see how rediculous the orignal line of reasoning is, consider--newton's formulation of gravitation contains no method for temperature transfer between two bodies.

Tags: