Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 690846 times)

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #140 on: 03/04/2009 04:00 PM »
From a private note:

"I was reading the STAIF presentation from 2007 and in the end there was a time scale with conclusion.
What would mean G/I Power Generators?"


If one is using an MLT or UFG and running in wormhole territory, meaning the mass fluctuation is > 100%; then the amount of kinetic energy generated by the thruster ought to be more than the electrical energy supplied to the thruster.  What this means is such a thruster can be connected to the flywheel of a generator and will produce net electrical energy.  Such a generator system seems at first glance to be a violation of conservation but such is not the case.  The thruster is actually "harvesting" momentum and energy from the gravinertial flux of the universe so such a system is not any different than say a coal fired power plant but in our case, the coal is replaced by the GI field.

What this would mean for space transport, any transport; is the possibility of creating generally "rangeless" craft that are limited in range only by things other than their propulsion needs.  Much like nuclear powered Navy vessals, the operational issues then become things like foodstuffs.  That's a headache I think we'd all prefer over the very limited kind of space travel we've had till now.

Hope that answers your question.

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #141 on: 03/04/2009 06:43 PM »
Star-Drive,

Could the LOX/Hydrogen fuel cells be replaced with radioisotope thermoelectric generator like one in Cassini probe for a Mars mission?

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #142 on: 03/04/2009 08:35 PM »
Unfortunately, there are at least 10 years before Bussard generators will appear.

Star-Drive,

What is the velocity limit of WarpStar-1? I guess it could be used for missions beyond Mars, although I would dream to go there first :)

One more thing: What would look like a liftoff of a WarpStar-1?


As we extract energy from this G/I energy resource, the average kinetic energy temperature of the universe's atoms will decrease until they hit absolute zero.
Which means that nature is giving the ship superconductivity without the need of the material itself



« Last Edit: 03/04/2009 08:36 PM by Sith »

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #143 on: 03/04/2009 10:33 PM »
That would be a fantastic ride around Sol 8)

The size of the craft is not an issue, I guess. Because the next step of the space exploration era is space colonization, and therefore much payload capacity will be needed for transporting materials to the moon, Mars and the other planets. Human presence should spread in Sol, we all agree.

Now that I'm little more familiar with WarpStar-1, I think it is intended to be the craft that would be able to show new ways of propulsion that far outstrip modern chemical rockets. It combines old and new technologies: the bond past-future. I fully support it's development and it realy should be taken seriously by the whole aerospace sector.


Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #144 on: 03/05/2009 12:11 AM »
Dear Star Drive;

Thank you very much for your update. If I understand you correct the data-to-noise ratio of the latest tests showed a dB-ratio of ~10dB or 10-to-1. This is IMHO fantastic news. With such a large data-to-noise ratio the viability of the theory, the experiments and therefore the MLT thrusters is IMHO nearly a given.

On the other side the Newton/Watt ratio of 0,1 – 10 Newton / Watt you talk about seems rather extreme. :) I hope these values are not too good to be true. According to a PDF I read a few days ago a normal Toyota Corolla needs around 500 Newton to overcome the drag (body + wheels) at 100kmh (~ 62mph). The car engine needs ~13,5 KW of power for that. On the other side a highly efficient MLT would need only 50 Watts for the same task. So a MLT could be up to 270 times more efficient as a normal car engine which drives the wheels. That’s astounding.

You shouldn't think of the MLT as an engine - it's more like a sail in terms of how it gets its energy. Consider that Columbus sailed all the way across the Atlantic with the only energy expenditure from his vehicle being the work down to trim the sails. The MLT simply uses environmental energy and environmental mass. If it were solar-powered it would use zero onboard energy. Heck, solar sails are a propellantless drive. If you make one big and thin enough you could get similar performance to the MLT - it's just unwieldy is all.

Quote
I really hope that the calculations about the very high efficiency of the MLT’s are correct because this would open a complete new world regarding everything transportation, starting with simple pedal powered vehicles up to behemoth star cruisers. But I fear that it could not be so because it sounds too good to be true. 

Kind regards

Manfred


Sometimes you just get big technological leaps. Several decades ago we cracked the atom, and that could have taken us all over the solar system and to the nearer stars except for the political issues.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #145 on: 03/05/2009 12:20 AM »
Sith:

Any self-contained electrical power generation system with sufficient power output will do, but high efficiency approaches are preferable since they minimize the size and mass of the radiators required to dump the waste heat from the power source.  That is why I prefer direct energy to electricity conversion cycles that avoid the Carnot Cycle such as fuel cells or regenerative fuel cells tied to photovoltaic systems for inside Mars orbit work, and Bussard's aneutronic wiffleball fusion reactors with direct kinetic energy to electrostatic energy cycles that can conversion efficiencies greater that 80% needed for deep space work outside of Mars orbit.

BTW, I have one final note on the above question on whether the MLT 1.0 N/W operating efficiency GOAL is too good to be true.  The TOTAL potential energy wrapped up in the gravinertial (G/I) field, i.e. how big is this G/I field gas tank anyway, is tied directly to the total amount of kinetic energy of every atom in the causally connected (13.7 billion light year radius) universe, AND any potential Dark Energy tied up in "The Quantum Vacuum".  As we extract energy from this G/I energy resource, the average kinetic energy temperature of the universe's atoms will decrease until they hit absolute zero.  However, we would first have to drain the 67% of the Universe’s mass/energy reserves wrapped up in the Dark Energy field before or in parallel with extracting the kinetic energy reserves of the sensible atoms and subatomic particles that make up the rest of the 33% of the universe’s mass/energy before we run this tank dry.   

Just to let you know how LARGE an energy reserve this is, the visible portion of the universe's mass/energy makes up ~5% of this available mass/energy reserve per the latest cosmological estimates and they place that figure at ~1x10^80 atoms plus many more subatomic particles like neutrinos.  If each atom in the universe has an average ~6.24x 10^-18 Joules (1.0 electron volt) of kinetic energy, which is an educated WAG on my part, then the total kinetic energy that could be conveyed by the G/I field to the MLT from this 5% resource is 6.24x10^-18 x 1.0x10^80 = 6.24x10^62 Joules.  A 15 Megaton H-bomb puts out ~6.3x10^16 Joules…

Now, if the universe is destined to suffer the "Big Rip" where the Quantum Vacuum's Dark Energy that makes up the rest of the universe’s mass/energy literally rips the universe apart in three-to-ten billion years or so, (See the latest copy of Astronomy Magazine"), our only solution to keep this from happening is for all the civilizations in the universe to extract as much energy as they can from the G/I field to keep this fate from happening!  :)   




Since the G/I energy is ultimately converted to local waste heat and blackbody radiation, if everybody does this across the universe then there is no net energy drain. You would reach a point where the pull of all the G/I taps creates a net cooling effect but that would be balanced by the waste heat energy of the G/I powered systems... unfortunately stars and galaxies without net heat input would get frozen. Their cores wouldn't notice it but the stellar atompsheres would get chilled and frozen out even though their cores are still fusing and running at millions of kelvin.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #146 on: 03/05/2009 06:04 AM »
Star-Drive,

I didn't follow anything since the begining of the thread, but I would like to know, does this G/I flux influence the mass of the craft? I mean that field is going to make Warp-Star1 light as a feather, isn't it? Which would make it even more economical :)   

However, at what rate would the time flow inside the craft when it is active and in space? Because we know from Einstein that time is relative to the gravitational body. Since the WarpStar uses G/I field, it'll have some time side effect? For example running slower or faster, time dilation
« Last Edit: 03/05/2009 01:25 PM by Sith »

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #147 on: 03/06/2009 05:54 AM »
Star-Drive,

That's interesting. I had thought that the G/I effect was constrained to particles only, (ie the ions in the cap) but from what you're saying and from Woodward's explanation, that the mass variation is a result of a change in G/I local field strength?

So this mass variation field in fact is something like an artificial gravity well, or perhaps more accurately a kink in the local gravinertial field. This sounds to me a lot like good old fluid dynamics, where the MLT thruster forms something like a wing. Low pressure flow on top, high pressure below. This results in the counterintuitive situation of a gravity well below the vessel and an antigravity well in front. This is pretty useful - the drive could be used to pick up cargo (cows? UFO nuts?) and at the same time also seems to create a low pressure zone on top of the craft. I have no way of figuring this (I don't have any numbers for the resultant g-fields) but it seems like the MLT actually produces aerodynamic lift whilst static as well. It would also shunt debris aside and act as a kind of shield. However landings might be tricky as there could be a shower of loose rocks and soil rising up in certain spots.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2009 06:05 AM by Lampyridae »
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #148 on: 03/06/2009 06:54 PM »
why did you think that the WarpStar-1 was a great way to start the M-E development process?
Because it somehow assembles a unique design of hybrid vehicle that is not completely propellantless, but the right step to it.
The Lorentz force involvement makes me feel it'll succeed.

If the G/I drives are mounted inside the vehicle as I've done in the WarpStar-1 prototype, it might create some interesting localized gravitational like anomalies in the crew cabin up and downwind of the momentum flux exhaust.
In that case time will flow faster or slower inside the craft?


If you transiently shield the local ions in the dielectric from this ambient G/I field thru local ionic accelerations, then momentarily the inertial mass of the ion(s) have to change as it responds to this local disturbance (Kink) in the G/I field.
Positive or negative ions?
« Last Edit: 03/07/2009 04:36 PM by Sith »

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #149 on: 03/07/2009 02:23 PM »
What kind of payload can this theoretical G/I propulsion lift compared to chemical rockets ?

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #150 on: 03/07/2009 03:08 PM »
I'm not sure it's fair to compare a theoretical thruster based upon an almost arbitrary thrust efficiency figure, 1 N/W; to an actual thruster like SSME, etc.  But so that you have an idea of what is possible, the 1N/W figure was chosen by Paul and worked into his WarpStar design because it is a reasonable figure.  If you read the paper, you'll get an idea.

WarpStar 1 is the size of a largish business jet.  It can take off and land vertically so needs almost no infrastructure support.  You can park it in a few spaces at Walmart.  It's fuel cells are regenerative so you can plug it in to recharge the fuels or more quickly just replace the generated water with H2 and O2 and strip the water back off ship on either Earth or the Moon.  Top off any LN for cryogenics, add cheese puffs and away you go.  Since it doesn't make a hypersonic reentry, there is almost no maintenance to be concerned with and it can easily make 3 round trip flights to the Moon/day dropping several tons of payload each trip.  A single WarpStar could build a habitable Moonbase for dozens of people all by itself in less than a month.

So you see, there is really no comparing it to rockets. . .the Millenium Falcon maybe. . .

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #151 on: 03/07/2009 03:22 PM »
I'm not sure it's fair to compare a theoretical thruster based upon an almost arbitrary thrust efficiency figure, 1 N/W; to an actual thruster like SSME, etc.  But so that you have an idea of what is possible, the 1N/W figure was chosen by Paul and worked into his WarpStar design because it is a reasonable figure.  If you read the paper, you'll get an idea.

WarpStar 1 is the size of a largish business jet.  It can take off and land vertically so needs almost no infrastructure support.  You can park it in a few spaces at Walmart.  It's fuel cells are regenerative so you can plug it in to recharge the fuels or more quickly just replace the generated water with H2 and O2 and strip the water back off ship on either Earth or the Moon.  Top off any LN for cryogenics, add cheese puffs and away you go.  Since it doesn't make a hypersonic reentry, there is almost no maintenance to be concerned with and it can easily make 3 round trip flights to the Moon/day dropping several tons of payload each trip.  A single WarpStar could build a habitable Moonbase for dozens of people all by itself in less than a month.

So you see, there is really no comparing it to rockets. . .the Millenium Falcon maybe. . .

Ok sounds good, so what is now the biggest problem preventing development and deployment of such a vehicle in the near-term future ?

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #152 on: 03/07/2009 03:46 PM »
I'm not sure there's anything preventing development.  These things just take time.  Presently, the only person working on this full-time if Dr. Woodward.  Once DARPA gets its head out of its a$$ there should be funds for full time theoretical research and engineering development.  The main thing is to get the best people on this as their work-a-day jobs so we can see some real progress and we can't do that without a grant, etc.  So once the evidence is compelling enough for the people with the purses, we'll see action.  I should add that Dr. Woodward has many times refused financial support from Angel investors, etc. because he wants to see the level of evidence improved before he'll take money to move this along. 

If we don't see compelling evidence from the current rotator work by this June, or thrust evidence from March's high Q MLT sometime soon, then I think we'll see another UFG on the ARC Lite for testing by next fall and that should be enough for USG to take an active hand, IMHO.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #153 on: 03/10/2009 05:31 AM »
Lampy:

"That's interesting. I had thought that the G/I effect was constrained to particles only, (ie the ions in the cap) but from what you're saying and from Woodward's explanation, that the mass variation is a result of a change in G/I local field strength?"

You win the prize!  The M-E is first and foremost a G/I field effect theory based on the interactions between local ionic masses AND the ambient gravinertial field created by the rest of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe.  A G/I field that IS the causal agent of the property we call inertia.  If you transiently shield the local ions in the dielectric from this ambient G/I field thru local ionic accelerations, then momentarily the inertial mass of the ion(s) have to change as it responds to this local disturbance (Kink) in the G/I field.  (Visions of Obi-Wan talking about the “Force” now come to mind. :) )  Knowing how the bidirectional mass to G/I field interaction works and the rules that apply to that interaction contains the keys to low cost, faster and much safer inter-solar transportation and practical human crewed interstellar flight.

BTW, there is also another way to model the M-E mass fluctuations and that is via looking at them as QM based vacuum fluctuations in between the ions of the dielectric in question.  These quantum vacuum fluctuations (QVF) can be modeled as a very short lived and transient electron/positron pair neutral plasma with phonon induced pressure wave interactions that follow standard magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) rules, i.e., your fluid dynamics as applied to electrical plasmas.  The dielectric ions in this QVF model then act as obstructions to this plasma when the local dielectric ions are accelerated by an outside force, thus increasing the QVF density around the ions above the universe’s average QVF density of ~1.0x10^-26 kg/m^3. 

Dr. Harold (Sonny) White (NASA/JSC & Rice U.) has modeled the M-E as a Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation / MHD effect and his QVF/MHD spreadsheet tool predicts the observed thrust of my MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles' to within a factor of two.  I think we can be assured that when predicting how the gravinertial (G/I) field will respond to a given stimulus, hydrodynamic analysis tools will have to be used...


Hmmmm... so both theories predict a sort of attractive force at the bottom of the capacitor (I can almost picture a Lagrangian flow diagram in my head). The weird thing is there is always zero "flow" around the engine, it's kind of like a low-powered jet engine in a thick atmosphere until you get to relativistic speeds.

Have your tests accounted for these predicted local gravity variations? Are they at a level where they could affect the thrust measurements? From the photos of your apparatus so far I guess it wouldn't be measurable.


SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #154 on: 03/10/2009 05:29 PM »
Lampy, if memory serves, about a year ago there was a concern that the ARC Lite might have some vertical-horizontal coupling and that what we might have been seeing was a time averaged loss of mass.  Maybe Paul can remember better. But in any case, if the ARC Lite were assembled in "teeter totter" configuration, meaning the displacement of the arm were vertical rather than horizontal, then such phenomena as you describe probably could be studied.  They were not because the studies at that time had other goals but they could be studied in the future using existing apparatus.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #155 on: 03/10/2009 09:37 PM »
If we don't see compelling evidence from the current rotator work by this June, or thrust evidence from March's high Q MLT sometime soon, then I think we'll see another UFG on the ARC Lite for testing by next fall and that should be enough for USG to take an active hand, IMHO.

Update: Dr. Woodward announced today that he will begin construction of the next generation UFG this week (a pair of antagonistic stacks or "shuttler" design--gen 5), so we will probably be seeing more thrust tests from Fullerton before he goes on extended vacation in June. 

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #156 on: 03/11/2009 02:05 PM »
It'll be interesting to see if there's a consistent difference in force generated by the next gen UFG, based upon orientation in the Earth's field but I presume that sort of study will have to wait until Dr. Woodward is satisfied with the more general thrust studies.  Lets hope that happens sometime soon.  Also, perhaps Dr. Woodward can be cajoled into allowing us to paste up a graph of the most recent rotator data here when he starts moving if from Excel to Graph to PPT.  That could form the basis of some real interest and discussion.  As it is now, the rotator is demonstrating these two effects in anti-phase--electrostrictive and Mach-Effect--and he's showing the specific gee loading where the M-E goes > electrostriction, which is what theory predicts since electrostriction is not related to loading except for hydrostatic effects.  The data is certainly still young but it is most promising.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2009 03:11 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #157 on: 03/16/2009 04:12 AM »
The "graviton" model I've been using seems to come up with a lot of contradictory stuff - gravitational forces averaging over the amount of mass in the mini g-well, the gravity well being "blocked up" if there's too much mass in it etc. Assuming GR curvature seems to make it work more nicely.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #158 on: 03/16/2009 09:08 AM »
Please explain how these gees translate. This is obviously gross gees at some point in the cycle, not net thrust between opposing positive and negative thrusts.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #159 on: 03/16/2009 11:17 AM »
Quote from: Star-Drive link=topic=13020.msg371066#msg371066

With a constant 1.0 gee acceleration, the velocity limit is simply vel= vel-o + a*t where a= 9.81 m/sec^2 (1.0 gee) and t is 12 hour run time in seconds or 43,200 sec.  So the "burn-out" velocity for this configuration when the LOX/Hydrogen tanks run dry is 423,792 meters/sec or 423.792 km/sec.  If you want to go faster then add solar arrays or a fission based nuclear power plant like a SP-100 that can put out that same power for up to ten years.  Of coruse after only about 9 months at 1.0 gee you are going 99% the speed of light.

Lets do a very rough energy budget calculation. I'm even going to go well against my training and neglect momentum conservation.

Lets imagine a 1kg mass moving at 99% the speed of light. At this speed the best way of calculating kinetic energy is not KE=.5mv^2 but using the relativistic formula: Total energy = gamma * m * c^2 (c is the speed of light)

gamma = 1 / Sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )

now we are saying that v/c = .99, right? OK so after punching a few numbers gamma is a little over 7, but lets take 7 as a rough estimate.

(Note that actually the usual calculation for kinetic energy is just an approximation to this formula but we won't worry about that here)

so the total mass-energy of this speedy kilogram is actually 7kg. That is 6kg's worth of energy has been converted directly to energy in order to accelerate this single kilogram. (Note that we haven't considered how this has been done and the necessary inefficiencies of the method)

OK 6kg of energy. How much is that? Well its 54 * 10^16 J...

Next question is: how many seconds in 9 months? Thats just over 23 million seconds

What is the average power? 2.34 * 10 ^ 10 Watts - 23.4 Gigawatts (I can't imagine what Dr Emmot Brown would say: probably thats 19.3 lightning bolts - for nine months)

Don't forget, this is for 1 kilogram...

I'm going back to the reality of STS-119 coverage...
« Last Edit: 03/16/2009 11:59 AM by Celebrimbor »

Tags: