Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 688540 times)

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1360 on: 07/01/2011 04:19 AM »
One of the objections to the conjecture is that it calls for instantaneous action at a distance.  However, Woodward et al., maintain that this is not so, that action at a distance is not required for the conjecture to be true.  And then they go all math on me, and I go, huh?

But consider also, Mr. Woodward's recent comment: "Since inertial reaction forces are acceleration dependent, a radiative process is involved".  I understand that a radiative process can only proceed at the speed of light.  Therefore, I struggle to understand the process by which the distant mass of the universe, thru a radiateve process, can have an instantaneous effect on a local mass.

If you could oblige and help my understanding, I'd certainly appreciate it.

Have you tried reading the wiki entry for Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory? Or Woodward's "the origin of inertia" page where the concept of retarded/advanced waves is introduced?

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler-Feynman_absorber_theory


By the way, Paul, has sfuerst been communicating with Woodward in e-mail exchanges? I'm kind of interested in whether or not he's changed his mind on the math.


GeeGee:

No word back from Steve F. since Woodward's last post I appended above at least for ones I was privy to.  I hope that means that Dr. von Fuerst is taking the time to read through and understand the Sciama and Woodward papers I pointed him to.  Time will tell.

Best,

Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1361 on: 07/01/2011 05:51 AM »
its a lot of info to chew through.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1362 on: 07/03/2011 06:05 AM »
I was reading Harold White's presentation on QVF/MHD thrusters and I'm curious...is there any test you can perform to tell this effect apart from the Mach effect?


I kind of understand the picture of how a MLT is supposed to work (push heavy, pull light), but this QVF/MHD effect seems a tad harder to visualize.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1363 on: 07/06/2011 04:52 PM »
its a lot of info to chew through.

AcesHigh:

And attached is Woodward's latest M-E theory and experimental data dump presentation on his PZT Stack tests performed last month.  Given that Dr. Woodward's now needs to increase the thrust output of his PZT stacks by another order of magnitude to demonstrate an understanding of the M-E's I/O scaling rules, this data set is getting to be a rubust one, IMO of course.
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1364 on: 07/06/2011 05:45 PM »
I was reading Harold White's presentation on QVF/MHD thrusters and I'm curious...is there any test you can perform to tell this effect apart from the Mach effect?

I kind of understand the picture of how a MLT is supposed to work (push heavy, pull light), but this QVF/MHD effect seems a tad harder to visualize.

GeeGee:

Answer to your first question: The main thing that delineates Dr. White's QVF/MHD conjecture from Dr. Woodward's M-E conjecture when applied to MLT like devices is the lack of need for a BULK acceleration of all the energy storing dielectric verses the M-E conjecture’s need for a bulk acceleration required to evoke the inertia reaction forces needed to express the M-E.  To design a test that would make or break the QVF/MHD conjecture, one would have to build a device that has NO bulk acceleration of the MLT caps from any source including that from the piezoelectric effect inherent in high-k ceramic dielectrics used in its construction.

Answer to your second question:  The QVF/MHD conjecture posits that under local ionic accelerations in the dielectric in either direction relative to the applied E-field, the dielectric ions transiently densifies the local free vacuum mass/energy density state in front of them, assumed to be made from semi-virtual electron/positron pairs, from the nominal mass/energy vacuum density of ~1x10^-26 kg/m^3 up to ten to twenty orders of magnitude larger.  This transiently densified vacuum state plasma is then expelled out of the dielectric via an externally applied and crossed B-field that generates a Lorentz force that accelerates this semi-virtual and densified electron/positron pair plasma out of the caps in much the same way as a turbofan jet engine functions with air.  So a QVF/MHD device uses a semi-continuous thrust production process verses the M-E’s cyclic thrust production process.

BTW, one of Dr. White's QVF/MHD conjecture predictions indicated that when high voltage (HV) direct current (dc) potentials are applied to the MLT caps with a crossed DC B-field, that it would generate milli-Newton forces.   I tested this conjecture with ~25kV-dc and ~1,000 Gauss dc B-field in a 4" OD Teflon cap MLT structure and found zero thrust produced.  At a minimum, it appears that the QVF/MHD model has to be restricted to its alternating current (ac) predictions, or that the M-E is right and the QVF/MHD conjecture is wrong.   Another failure in the QVF/MHD conjecture is that it does not predict a thrust in devices built like Woodward's PZT stacks, since the crossed E-field and B-fields in the PZT stack cap’s produce net zero Lorentz forces needed to accelerate the QVF/MHD’s posited semi-virtual electron/positron pair plasma out of the stack configuration.   

Best,

Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1365 on: 07/06/2011 09:49 PM »
BTW, one of Dr. White's QVF/MHD conjecture predictions indicated that when high voltage (HV) direct current (dc) potentials are applied to the MLT caps with a crossed DC B-field, that it would generate milli-Newton forces.   I tested this conjecture with ~25kV-dc and ~1,000 Gauss dc B-field in a 4" OD Teflon cap MLT structure and found zero thrust produced.  At a minimum, it appears that the QVF/MHD model has to be restricted to its alternating current (ac) predictions, or that the M-E is right and the QVF/MHD conjecture is wrong.   Another failure in the QVF/MHD conjecture is that it does not predict a thrust in devices built like Woodward's PZT stacks, since the crossed E-field and B-fields in the PZT stack cap’s produce net zero Lorentz forces needed to accelerate the QVF/MHD’s posited semi-virtual electron/positron pair plasma out of the stack configuration.   

Best,

Paul M.

Hrmm, so it appears then that Woodward's hypothesis seems to be the most likely explanation for the anomalous effect at this moment. I'm sure Dr. White would object, but we'll just have to wait for more experimentation to come to a solid conclusion.

By the way, the latest slides seem encouraging. It seems like you guys are getting to a point where experimental error seems less plausible. Now we just have to see whether or not the effect can be scaled up for space propulsion, or if York Dobbyns was right when he asserted that at best, the effect is very minuscule. After reading the Economist's "The end of the space age" article, I really hope Dobbyns is wrong.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2011 09:51 PM by GeeGee »

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1366 on: 07/07/2011 01:39 AM »

By the way, the latest slides seem encouraging. It seems like you guys are getting to a point where experimental error seems less plausible. Now we just have to see whether or not the effect can be scaled up for space propulsion, or if York Dobbyns was right when he asserted that at best, the effect is very minuscule. After reading the Economist's "The end of the space age" article, I really hope Dobbyns is wrong.

Concur, the level of detail & serious attention to clear explanation of the testing and elimination of spurious causes is really encouraging. Even in the current "that's a specialty area, I don't know" mentality that pervades science these days, it's hard to ignore when it hits you in the face.

I would say if he can get the thrust levels above the "arguably greater than six sigma" stage (i.e., to where the word "arguably" begins to seem silly, as opposed to necessary), it will be convincing proof that the device produces measurable thrust due to unconventional explanations.

If one of the contributers can do the same with a MLT or other device that operates on the same proposed principles, but using different methods, that would provide the clear evidence that not only is scalable propellantless propulsion within reach, but that that the source of intertia is gravitational, Mach's principle is correct, and we can at last give
dm0~(1./4.pi.G)[(1./rho.c^2)(dP/dt)-(1./rho.c^2)^2(P^2./V^2)] its proper name, the Woodward effect equation. That would launch a new dawn in science and perhaps return theoretical physics a bit closer to, well, phenomena that are investigatable within human lifespans.

For now, however, the current data .pdf is pretty darn exciting.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2011 01:42 AM by cuddihy »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1367 on: 07/07/2011 03:38 AM »

By the way, the latest slides seem encouraging. It seems like you guys are getting to a point where experimental error seems less plausible. Now we just have to see whether or not the effect can be scaled up for space propulsion, or if York Dobbyns was right when he asserted that at best, the effect is very minuscule. After reading the Economist's "The end of the space age" article, I really hope Dobbyns is wrong.

Concur, the level of detail & serious attention to clear explanation of the testing and elimination of spurious causes is really encouraging. Even in the current "that's a specialty area, I don't know" mentality that pervades science these days, it's hard to ignore when it hits you in the face.

I would say if he can get the thrust levels above the "arguably greater than six sigma" stage (i.e., to where the word "arguably" begins to seem silly, as opposed to necessary), it will be convincing proof that the device produces measurable thrust due to unconventional explanations.

If one of the contributers can do the same with a MLT or other device that operates on the same proposed principles, but using different methods, that would provide the clear evidence that not only is scalable propellantless propulsion within reach, but that that the source of intertia is gravitational, Mach's principle is correct, and we can at last give
dm0~(1./4.pi.G)[(1./rho.c^2)(dP/dt)-(1./rho.c^2)^2(P^2./V^2)] its proper name, the Woodward effect equation. That would launch a new dawn in science and perhaps return theoretical physics a bit closer to, well, phenomena that are investigatable within human lifespans.

For now, however, the current data .pdf is pretty darn exciting.

Folks:

I forgot to append the following Woodward paper that was referenced in Part-1 of the latest M-E data dump.  It's a deeper explanation of action-at-a-distance and what it really means in the M-E context.  I.e., James C. Maxwell's E&M derivation's negative square root propagation solution that predicts possible acausal effects must be taken seriously not only for E&M, but also for gravitational effects as well.

Best,

Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1368 on: 07/07/2011 04:09 AM »
I wonder if SFuerst will return to the topic. Paul, do you have any info if Fuerst has contacted Dr Woodward???


well, the least we can assume is that Dr Fuerst is spending a lot of his time to read all the info provided.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1369 on: 07/07/2011 04:31 AM »
I wonder if SFuerst will return to the topic. Paul, do you have any info if Fuerst has contacted Dr Woodward???

well, the least we can assume is that Dr Fuerst is spending a lot of his time to read all the info provided.

AcesHigh:

Hopefully Dr. Fuerst is catching up on Woodward's Mach Effect work that has spanned the last two plus decades.  However I've not heard anything else from him since his last post to Woodward back on Friday, so let's hope he hasn't lost interest.

BTW, as to higher M-E derived thrusts using MLT structures, there is my own 2004 and 2005 milli-Newton work that indicates that such goals shouldn't be too difficult to reach under the more rigorous test condtions such as Woodward imploys.  Of coruse what Jim is going to do next Fall provided his health holds up is to improve the current PZT-stack setup to see if he can coax its thrust output up to ~10 micro-Newton by improving the input power impedance matching with the exsiting Carvin audio amps that drive it and then building a couple of new PZT stacks using higher-Q PZT materials.  Past that he will have to replace his current 1.0 kW Carvin audio amplifiers that crap out between 60 kHz and 110 KHz and replace them with amplifiers that can provide stable output up to at least 500 kHz if not higher.

Best,

Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1370 on: 07/07/2011 06:30 AM »
Folks:

I forgot to append the following Woodward paper that was referenced in Part-1 of the latest M-E data dump.  It's a deeper explanation of action-at-a-distance and what it really means in the M-E context.  I.e., James C. Maxwell's E&M derivation's negative square root propagation solution that predicts possible acausal effects must be taken seriously not only for E&M, but also for gravitational effects as well.

Best,
Paul M.
The vector gravity theory used in that paper is Heaviside's Appendix B of his Electromagnetic Theory Vol. I, "A Gravitational and Electromagnetic Analogy", written in 1893. Here's McDonald's note on it:

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/vectorgravity.pdf

Of course, Heaviside would immediately reject any consideration of "advanced waves".

Note that Heaviside's vector gravity paper was just pushing an analogy as far as it could go. His actual gravity+electromagnetic theory is in Electromagnetic Theory Vol. III, "Matter, Electricity, Ether and the Pressure of Radiation", written in 1902. It's a far more interesting theory with all sorts of ramifications. Of course, it contains the dreaded "E" word, which instantly brands you a crackpot these days. I don't have any professional physics reputation to defend so it doesn't bother me. I'd just like to see someone with the proper mathematical chops look into it further. I can handle the plane wave solutions but not the general equations, which are where all the fun happens. In particular, the intersection of two or more intense em waves.

Anyway, I just thought I'd toss this out there.

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 188
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1371 on: 07/07/2011 07:36 AM »
Ya know, if for no other reason, it'd be great if ME panned out.  Just so it pulls the carpet under contemporary science's reluctance to going off the beaten path more than it does now.
The pork must flow.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1372 on: 07/07/2011 08:38 AM »
Ya know, if for no other reason, it'd be great if ME panned out.  Just so it pulls the carpet under contemporary science's reluctance to going off the beaten path more than it does now.

Strangely enough, Woodward isn't even really doing 'off-beat' physics when you realize what he's really doing is trying to answer a fundamental question of physics - what is the source of inertia? If Woodward's right, then the space drive is an added bonus.

I don't really understand why this isn't a 'hot topic' in physics anymore. Dark energy, String theory and the Higgs particle get all the attention these days.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2011 09:03 PM by GeeGee »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1373 on: 07/07/2011 12:41 PM »
Ya know, if for no other reason, it'd be great if ME panned out.  Just so it pulls the carpet under contemporary science's reluctance to going off the beaten path more than it does now.

Strangely enough, Woodward isn't even really doing 'off-beat' physics when you realize what he's really trying to do is trying to answer a fundamental question of physics - what is the source of inertia? If Woodward's right, then the space drive is an added bonus.

I don't really understand why this isn't a 'hot topic' in physics anymore. Dark energy, String theory and the Higgs particle get all the attention these days.

Mikegi:

Thanks for the Heaviside paper!

GeeGee:

Woodward just opened up his M-E distribution to the ZPE folks in the hopes of getting a constructive dialogue going between the M-E and ZPE camps.  A dialogue will hopefully push forward developments in advaced gravity physics and building Advanced Deep Space Transports (ADST).  An excerpt from Woodward's last night "A New Direction" e-mail follows:

"As you know, the events of the past several months have gotten me
thinking about the issues of advanced propulsion in a somewhat wider
setting than I've thought about them before.  As you've read in the
email appended below, the central problem facing the advanced
propulsion field in my opinion is getting the physics right -- and
that likely (if we are very lucky) there will be one path through the
physics to starships and stargates.  The way to get there, if it can be done, is through plausible physics.

There is a related problem in my opinion: the people who have been
engaged in trying to find the plausible physics that will enable
starships and stargates have formed into informal groups, each with
its take on how the physics is to be addressed.  While this, I
suppose, is quite natural, it is not the best way to tackle the
problems before us.  If you only talk to like-minded folks, you're not
likely to hear anything new often.  Is there a way to deal with this?

Yes.  Someone needs to try to get all of the interested parties who do
plausible physics into an arrangement where they can keep track of
what others are doing, and contribute constructive criticism to help forward the project.

If we sit around and wait for someone else to do this, hell will
probably freeze over before it gets done.  So I have decided to try to
get this done by changing the nature of this email circulation from
one where I update you on progress on the Mach effects project, and
occasional discusions of related maters take place, to one where those
on the circulation include people who do plausible physics from those
other informal groups (of which some of you may already be members).

To that end, I have invited Jack Sarfatti, Vince Teofilo, John
Brandenburg, Hal Puthoff, and Eric Davis to participate in this
circulation -- and I am pleased to say that they have all agreed to do
so.  I know them all to be very capable physicists who do plausible
physics.  That's not to say that I agree with all of their views on
the issues of advanced propulsion.  But that's not the point.  We do
not yet know with certainty what the path of plausible physics to
starships and stargates is.  They, or indeed others, may have
important pieces of the puzzle.  Whatever the pieces of the puzzle may
be, they will be easier to put together if we are all listening to each other -- and talking too of course."

(James F. Woodward)
Star-Drive

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1374 on: 07/07/2011 05:39 PM »
Mikegi:

Thanks for the Heaviside paper!
You're welcome. I hope your theory and experiments succeed. I'm skeptical but the kind of effort and dedication you have is exactly what it will take to make breakthroughs. Even if Woodward's theory doesn't pan out, you never know what other things you'll discover in the post-mortem.

Quote
Woodward just opened up his M-E distribution to the ZPE folks in the hopes of getting a constructive dialogue going between the M-E and ZPE camps.  A dialogue will hopefully push forward developments in advaced gravity physics and building Advanced Deep Space Transports (ADST).
I recommend using a private forum rather than email or other "distribution" list formats. There are websites that let you create a private forum for free (advertisements). You/Woodward would have control over who is allowed to read/signup/post/etc. I could setup a phpBB forum on one of my servers for y'all (which would be totally free -- i.e. no annoying advertising).


Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 458
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1375 on: 07/07/2011 06:35 PM »
Sounds promising, I dropped off the Woodward email list when laid-off and haven't taken the time to re-establish contact again. Except for lurking here of course.
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1376 on: 07/07/2011 10:39 PM »
Mikegi:

Thanks for the Heaviside paper!

You're welcome. I hope your theory and experiments succeed. I'm skeptical but the kind of effort and dedication you have is exactly what it will take to make breakthroughs. Even if Woodward's theory doesn't pan out, you never know what other things you'll discover in the post-mortem.

Quote
Woodward just opened up his M-E distribution to the ZPE folks in the hopes of getting a constructive dialogue going between the M-E and ZPE camps.  A dialogue will hopefully push forward developments in advaced gravity physics and building Advanced Deep Space Transports (ADST).

I recommend using a private forum rather than email or other "distribution" list formats. There are websites that let you create a private forum for free (advertisements). You/Woodward would have control over who is allowed to read/signup/post/etc. I could setup a phpBB forum on one of my servers for y'all (which would be totally free -- i.e. no annoying advertising).


Mike:

Thanks much for the forum idea.  I'll pass it on to Woodward and then see what he wants to do with it. 

"I'm skeptical but the kind of effort and dedication you have is exactly what it will take to make breakthroughs."

We keep trying, but I need a data point.  What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E?  In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer?  Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice? 

If a subset of floating suffices, then what is that thrust level threshold needed for a "Proof" and what addtional false postive tests are required to clinch the deal??  False positive tests such as Faraday shielding the M-E PZT-Stack test article and all power feed wiring, having the thrust signal being dynamically reversable and repeatable as demonstrated on Dr. Woodward's liquid metal, on center-line power fed torque pendulum, and being under vacuum and non-vacuum conditions as Woodward has already done, still doesn't seem to be enough "Proof" for most parties at the demonstrated +/-1.0 plus micro-Newton thrust levels. 

So are we now talking about the need for proof of the M-E input power to output thrust scaling rules being observed, and/or, do we need to increase thrust levels to 10 micro-Newton, 100 micro-Newton, 1.0 milli-Newton, 10 milli-Newton, or even more, and what selection critera are you using for your choices?  Or does the M-E unit really have to be a battery powered, self contained system hovering over your hand for an hour or two to put all qualms aside?? 

This latter floating senario will ultimately be doable IMO, but please remember that we are doing all of this M-E R&D work on our personal dime and time, and we can only keep chasing that "Proof" carrot for so long...

Best,

Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline kurt9

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1377 on: 07/07/2011 10:55 PM »

We keep trying, but I need a data point.  What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E?  In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer?  Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice? 

So are we now talking about the need for proof of the M-E input power to output thrust scaling rules being observed, and/or, do we need to increase thrust levels to 10 micro-Newton, 100 micro-Newton, 1.0 milli-Newton, 10 milli-Newton, or even more, and what selection critera are you using for your choices?  Or does the M-E unit really have to be a battery powered, self contained system hovering over your hand for an hour or two to put all qualms aside?? 

Best,

Paul M.

Demonstration of scaling rules into the milli-Newton range (say, 1 milli-Newton or so) would convince me.

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1378 on: 07/08/2011 12:03 AM »

We keep trying, but I need a data point.  What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E?  In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer?  Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice? 

So are we now talking about the need for proof of the M-E input power to output thrust scaling rules being observed, and/or, do we need to increase thrust levels to 10 micro-Newton, 100 micro-Newton, 1.0 milli-Newton, 10 milli-Newton, or even more, and what selection critera are you using for your choices?  Or does the M-E unit really have to be a battery powered, self contained system hovering over your hand for an hour or two to put all qualms aside?? 

Best,

Paul M.

Demonstration of scaling rules into the milli-Newton range (say, 1 milli-Newton or so) would convince me.

It's about the scaling compared to the noise and other factors that seem like distractors.

It's not clear to me, for instance, why the runs are done as a frequency sweep -- it seems like a distractor. Why not do the runs at a rectified constant frequency where the stack is most resonant? Wouldn't that provide the clearest "thrust" signal?

Why does the thrust noise trace trend up over the course of a run in a major way?

If the unaveraged thrust signal was about 50 times what it currently is compared to the noise, there really wouldn't be any question.

The new .pdfs are much more convincing with regard to spurious causes, but, as is constantly pointed out, it really is an extraordinary claim, so "arguably just over six sigma" doesn't really cut it.

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1379 on: 07/08/2011 12:40 AM »
We keep trying, but I need a data point.  What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E?  In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer?  Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice?
Sad to say but I really haven't thought about what would constitute experimental proof of the theory (other than the obvious, "you fly into the room on a self-contained device"). Complex electrical systems, especially with moving parts, are notoriously difficult to analyze completely. That leaves your test target open to all sorts of unaccounted for sources of energy, forces, etc.

Fair or not, you're in the "extraordinary claims" arena, so you know what follows!

Quote
This latter floating senario will ultimately be doable IMO, but please remember that we are doing all of this M-E R&D work on our personal dime and time, and we can only keep chasing that "Proof" carrot for so long...
I know and that's why I hope that you gather enough experimental data to get the appropriate amount of attention (aka funding). Worst case is that you develop procedures for testing, isolation, and evaluation of these types of experiments, which I imagine will grow in number over the coming decades. That alone would justify some level of support.


Tags: