Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 666573 times)

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #160 on: 03/16/2009 01:51 PM »
Cel, you're bringing up an issue familiar to all on the Woodward mailing list though from a new standpoint.  The issue really is, how can there be so much mass fluctuation?  The energy equivalent is enormous. 

So you know, you only calculated a 700% fluctuation.  Paul March's current MLT build is designed around a 3,000,000% fluctuation.

So maybe the math isn't as simple as it seems to you?  The fact that mass can be fluctuated AT ALL is the real issue. . .the one you haven't grappled with yet.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2009 01:53 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #161 on: 03/16/2009 01:59 PM »
Paul, your chart is saying that M-E scales approximately linearly with gee loading.  What I'm curious about is what we should expect with rectified thrust.  If one uses the same mechanism for both bulk acceleration and rectification, for example a UFG, then thrust ought to scale to acceleration^2?

It matters since we both know rotators are not the best way to build thrusters.  We need a Mhz UFG or MLT with displacements in the uM range.

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #162 on: 03/16/2009 03:07 PM »
Cel, you're bringing up an issue familiar to all on the Woodward mailing list though from a new standpoint.  The issue really is, how can there be so much mass fluctuation?  The energy equivalent is enormous. 

So you know, you only calculated a 700% fluctuation.  Paul March's current MLT build is designed around a 3,000,000% fluctuation.

So maybe the math isn't as simple as it seems to you?  The fact that mass can be fluctuated AT ALL is the real issue. . .the one you haven't grappled with yet.

All I was describing is the effect of relativity, which is necessary because the speed of light is observed to be constant in all reference frames. I ws trying to highlight that the average power requirements were very large to reach 99% the speed of light in 9 months.

I am not familar with the Woodward mainling list. I've never heard of mass fluctuation. Changing the mass of something? Well according the the mass-energy equivalence that we all know and love, this would see, like energy from nothing... Is that what you are proposing?

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #163 on: 03/16/2009 03:17 PM »

C:

As GI-Thruster has already noted, using E=m*c^2 in the way you’ve done to gage the energy flux during an inertial mass fluctuation is correct from one point of view, but it’s not the appropriate way to view this G/I mass fluctuation phenomenon, for it misses the whole point of Sciama’s and Woodward’s view on the origins of inertia.  In their conjectures, derivations, and Woodward’s data, the origins of inertial mass, when looking at a local mass in the laboratory frame of reference, is being due to the local mass’ gravity/inertial (G/I) field interactions.   A G/I field created by all the rest of the mass/energy contained in the causally connected universe.  In this conjecture, if we were in a universe with only one local chunk of mass, it would have almost no inertial mass properties since there would be very little G/I field interactions to impede its acceleration.

Sciama and Woodward models this G/I interaction of the accelerated mass with a universal G/I field as a transient disturbance in the G/I field around the accelerated mass, which transiently shields the mass from its G/I field energy source, which in turn reduces the effective inertial mass of the locally accelerated mass as long as that disturbance in the G/I field exists close by the mass in question.  However, since this G/I disturbance propagates spherically away from the local mass at the speed of light, this single transient mass fluctuation event of the local mss does not last very long, and that is why any quasi-steady state G/I thruster has to use an alternating current (ac) excitation to keep producing these transient G/I shielding events around the G/I thruster mass in question.

If you have more questions, I advise that you read through Dr. Woodward’s CSUF entry on gravitation and the origins of inertia that can be found at this URL by clicking on the Gravitation topic in his Research Interests:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html



I have not understood your jargonistic repsonse. You've talked about a "G/I field" and "a quasi-steady state G/I thruster". I don't know what these terms mean. I appreciate your offer of reading more at the URL that you have provided. Howevet, if you want me to believe in what you are telling me then you will have to be brief. Honestly, if its real physics, I can take it. How is it that you can create mass from nothing? If it can be done, why does it not happen naturally and spontaneously?

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #164 on: 03/16/2009 05:28 PM »
We really need a thread that outlines the exotic technologies we discuss here with glossaries and links to relevant literature.

Moving on, I'd like to summarize some earlier concerns I had with the MLT (Machian Lorentz Thruster) device.

1. We still need to demonstrate that it generates thrust (linear force) not torque (rotational force). I have a good deal of optimism that this is a thrust effect, but I think it needs to be resolved.

2. The equation given in this thread for estimating the thrust doesn't appear to scale to frequencies where masses are vibrating at relativistic velocities.

3. The Machian model (the part where the device is pushing against the rest of the universe) doesn't add much. I think we would be better served to view the device as a generator of gravitational and electromagnetic waves (in some combination which carry the momentum needed to generate thrust) in a particular direction. Among other things, the latter is a local theory and doesn't depend on the  extent of the universe.

4. If above model idea is accurate and the MLT device generates net thrust, then we should be able to work in reverse. That is, the MLT should be able to detect gravitational and electromagnetic waves (of similar characteristics) as well as generate them. If it can detect pure gravitational waves and generate gravitational waves, then we have the basis for a communication system that can penetrate considerable mass like the Earth or the Sun. Even if a single element has extremely poor resolution (think a directional antenna with very large lobes or a telescope that picks up and blurs everything in the large portion of sky that it is pointed at), a large enough phased array of them could have the desired resolution.

5. We should be able to test just how fast gravitational waves propagate. Are they instantaneous or move at the speed of light?

6. A similar device, the QVF/MHD (Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation/MagnetoHydroDynamics) thruster doesn't appear to me to be viable. It depends on the existence of exploitable fluctuations in the vacuum background. I see the current arguments in favor of QVF/MHD thrusters as analogous to saying that you can make money from the stock market merely because you know the stock market fluctuates.
Karl Hallowell

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #165 on: 03/16/2009 06:36 PM »
Karl, I'll take a stab at responding to your 6 points above while keeping an eye out to try to precise some terms so Cal can take advantage of the thread without backing up six months.  I agree Mach-Effect (M-E) work done on the rotator, the  UFG (Unified Force Generator) and the MLT (Mach-Lorentz Thruster) deserve their own thread, especially in light of the new evidence pouring out of the Fullerton lab daily.  Also I agree that it is probably best to leave the alternate, ZPF based explanation aside since it is an alternate explanation, Dr. White has some issues still unresolved and his theory has not yet been peer reviewed. 
 
As to your points:
 
1)  Just because a thruster is on a measurement devise with a moment arm does not mean one is measuring torque.  The fact that it is the measurement apparatus that includes a moment arm and not the thruster should be enough to show this.  All of the thrusters to date, both UFG and MLT have demonstrated not torque, but linear thrust.  However, it really does not matter, Karl.  All torque based pseudo-thrusters like Dean Drives always have their torque time average to zero.  They cannot work because they entail an intrinsic failure to conserve momentum.  Dean Drives only appear to work under certain conditions but they do not work.  They time average their force, linear or torque; to zero.  This is not the case for the UFG or MLT.
 
2)  Sorry, I'm not following.  What is vibrating at relativistic velocities?
 
3)  Karl, in order to postulate a mass fluctuation two previous theories have to be true: a) Mach's Principle, posits the gravitic interconnection between all the universe's various parts is the cause of inertia and b) General Relativity.  If you do not hold to Mach's Principle, there is no theoretical basis for expecting mass fluctuations of any sort.  Only Jim Woodward's theory predicts mass fluctuations or Mach Effects (M-E) and it is only able to do so because it relies upon Mach's Principle.
 
4)  This has almost nothing to do with gravitational waves and they are not the best way to look at this issue.
 
5)  All GR theorists believe that gravity propagates at the speed of light.  It is not instantaneous. 
 
6)  As you say, if there's to be discussion of Dr. White's theory, it deserves its own thread.
 
Cal, M-E theory clearly says that mass can be temporarily fluctuated under very specific conditions.  When those conditions obtain, the mass will fluctuate positively and negatively, twice each cycle.  So for instance given the data above posted by StarDrive, the rf driving frequency is 40 kHz.  the mass fluctuation is really found at the 2 omega or at 80 khz.  Lets suppose you have a 40 khz thruster rather than the rotator we've been talking about.  The rotator demonstrates M-E but it does not generate thrust.  For thrust you need to rectify the M-E as is done in a UFG or MLT.
 
Lets take a UFG or MLT operating at 40 khz and 50% mass fluctuation with two g of active mass.  That will mean that during the first and third quarter cycle, the mass will fluctuate to 3 g and during the second and last quarter cycle, the mass will fluctuate to 1 g.  What we do is push it in one direction when it's heavy, and pull it in the other direction when it's light.  That yields net thrust.

Hope that helps.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2009 07:31 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #166 on: 03/16/2009 06:47 PM »

Woodward's conjecture does NOT create mass from nothing. 


Good start

Quote
His conjecture states that the APPARENT inertial mass of a local mass can be transiently REDUCED by shielding it from the universal G/I field that give rise to the property we call inertia.

This actually reminds me of my MPhys project which was a speculative investigation into quantised particle masses being fixed by the presence of a fifth dimension. Great fun and perfectly legitimate theoretical physics (a precursor to the infamous string theory) but not the basis to begin building machines. OK on...

Quote

This G/I field shielding effect is proportional to the local mass’ applied acceleration times the double derivative of the energy flux passing through the cap dielectric mass in question, so by definition it is a transient shielding effect in real systems.

My eyes almost glazed at this point but I pick up on dielectric. I know what that is. It's used in capacitors to increase the capacitance. So going back: acceleration times the second derivative.... with respect to what? Time? Position? Ambiguous to say the least. OK on...

Quote
As to why this mass fluctuation effect doesn't show up in everyday devices, it’s simply due to the fact that these transient mass fluctuations almost always time average to zero over one excitation period such as in the sine waves used in RF transmitters. 

RF, where back to electromagnetism. OK. You know, these mass fluctuations remind me of the well-known quantum mechanical effect of the pair creation of virtual particles. Is that what you mean? They happen on a time scale inversely proportional to the mass involved and so they are never directly observable. But you've confused me with your analogy of radio transmitters and sine waves.

Quote

The only way one could see a net thrust from such a device is if a third force is applied to the mass fluctuating dielectric mass in a push-heavy, pull-light force rectification process that has to be timed precisely with these time varying mass fluctuations or you end up with zip net forces.


Aha, a third force. I see. So far I count two forces, gravity and elecro-magnetism. Neither of these get us anywhere and so we need a third force. To get things moving. Yes. I agree.

Quote

Now, if you don’t like my “jargonistic” description of this M-E effect, which is my good faith effort to convey these ideas to folks who aren’t familiar with same, then all I can recommend to you now is to look up Woodward’s URL on this topic and the many other related physics papers in peer reviewed journals if you want to see and understand all the gory mathematical details contained in their derivations, and the experimental data backing them up. 


Wow, this is a long sentence. I did look at the URL and I notice that this Woodward is in humanities.

Quote
However, be prepared to spend several years in the process as I have done.

Cool.



Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #167 on: 03/16/2009 07:46 PM »
Dr. Woodward's PhD is in the history of gravity physics.  This is probably one reason he was able to solve as he did, because he was more intimately aware of those who had gone before him than the average PhD in physics.

Please don't miss the note I posted to you just above yours.


« Last Edit: 03/16/2009 07:48 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #168 on: 03/16/2009 10:04 PM »
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.

They are the radial bulk acceleration centripetal gees (9.81 m/sec^2) at the radius of the cap-ring when spun at the noted revolutions per second rotation rate.  You can calculate them from the known radius r = 0.056 meters of the cap-ring asssembly and the centripetal acceleration equation A= (tangential velocity)^2 / radius r.

OK, I can speak a bit of this cause I used to build mechanical models that used masses and changed the orbital radius as the mass went around the cycle (and likewise changed the orbital velocity, in a way that generated more centripital force on one side of the centrifuge than the other). My simulations of these models would subtract the small centripetal force on one side of the centrifuge from the larger force generated on the other side where the masses were moving at a higher angular velocity. While most of the g-forces cancelled each other out, the excess was the useful force imposed on the model to provide impulse.
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 khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #169 on: 03/16/2009 11:09 PM »
I won't push this again. Just pointing out unresolved issues and potential applications.

1. I already went over this months ago. Until the entire experiment, including power supply, is on that apparatus in a configuration that can distinguish between thrust and torque, there's still the danger that the MLT generates torque not thrust. Personally, I'm willing to wait till someone can generate enough thrust (or torque as the case may be) to easily verify this.

2. Let me elaborate. The capacitors in the MLT undergo periodic acceleration (say via vibration or rotation). As that acceleration increases, the capacitors will eventually reach relativistic speeds.

3. I point out here that one doesn't need the Machian principle. General Relativity and Maxwell's equations should do. We do not need to explain momentum transfer to the rest of the universe in the way you describe. The strength of my approach is that there doesn't even need to be mass in the rest of the universe. It is a strictly local explanation for the phenomenon.

4. Note the subject of this thread, "Propellantless Field Propulsion and application". Communication that can broadcast without much attenuation through the Earth at the speed of light could be a big money application of this technology. It'd greatly reduce the development cost of the propulsion application, if it exists, by creating a large market of off-the-shelf, relatively cheap components that should be able to generate reasonable levels of thrust.

5. We don't have sufficient experimental evidence of this aspect of general relativity. It's a near future application that could open up some money for MLT development. I consider it low-lying fruit.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2009 11:10 PM by khallow »
Karl Hallowell

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #170 on: 03/16/2009 11:27 PM »
4. Note the subject of this thread, "Propellantless Field Propulsion and application". Communication that can broadcast without much attenuation through the Earth at the speed of light could be a big money application of this technology. It'd greatly reduce the development cost of the propulsion application, if it exists, by creating a large market of off-the-shelf, relatively cheap components that should be able to generate reasonable levels of thrust.

Thats not the sort of communication hes speaking of. What he's talking about is the Feinman interpretation of quantum mechanics of the path integrals. For instance, optical refraction happens cause the speed of light in glass, for instance, is slower than in air or vacuum, as a result, the virtual photon follows every possible path between point a and b through air and glass, but becomes real when the fastest path is found and the probability cloud is collapsed soonest. Quantum entangled pairs do a similar thing except their path integrals includes paths backwards in time to communicate the most effectively.

Feinman had this breakthrough when he started thinking about how so many nuclear reaction trees are equally valid with T going positive or negative. He figured out an anti-photon is really a photon going backwards in time, for instance. The main reason why there is so much matter left after the big bang is that there was an equal amount of antimatter left after both sides annihilated each other, but the antimatter left over was going backwards in time.
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 GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #171 on: 03/16/2009 11:39 PM »
Karl,

1) You don't understand conservation.  You're drawing a distinction now for half a year that is completely spurious.  All momentum is conserved, linear and angular alike and your insistence that others need to cow tow to your specifications simply demonstrate you do not understand the issues at hand.

There are reasons to put the entire thruster and power system on the ARC Lite arm but they have nothing to do with conservation.  They concern protocol issues and are at this point, truly irrelevant.

2) No.  The speeds of the ceramic lattice attained in MLT's and UFG's do not come close to relativistic and will not so long as we continue to work outside wormhole territory where dm<m is the case.  You can do your own calculations here if you like.  Try this calculator and put in the figures for contemporary experiement: solve for A and provide F=40,000 and D =0.001mm.  You will not get relatavistic V's and we don't need them:

http://www.spaceagecontrol.com/calcsinm.htm?col=col1&V11=&F11=&A21=&F21=&V31=&A31=&F12=&D12=&A22=&F22=&A32=&D32=&what=A&F13=40000&D13=.001&F23=&V23=&V33=&D33=&A14=&D14=&V24=&D24=&A34=&V34=&units=Metric&submit=Calculate

3) I'm sorry Karl, but if you have another theory that posits mass fluctuation, please bring it forward.  You're making a vacuous claim here.  Only Jim Woodward has such a theory.  I know because I was paid to research this and I know, just as LockMart knows, that only Jim Woodward has such a theory.

4) If you want to pursue High Frequency Gravity Waves for communications, track James Baker and the Chinese effort but know that Baker is not offering propulsion.  He's 40 orders magnitude below what is needed for propulsion.  Check:

http://www.gravwave.com/

5) As I said, ALL GR theorists believe that gravity propagates at light speed.  If you know better, show us what you know.  GR says you're wrong here.

Nothing against you, Karl.  We need guys like you tracking what's happening with M-E research and again, let me offer you the invite to the mailing list should you take a serious interest.  Just let me know.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #172 on: 03/17/2009 03:14 AM »
1. Conservation of angular momentum is not violated. In the Machian model, it's easy to generate torque. Push the rest of the universe from spot A on a rigid structure and an opposite oriented push from a different spot B. The spatial difference between the otherwise equal and opposite forces generates torque. Angular momentum is conserved because either a) you are rotating the rest of the universe Machian style, or b) your gravitational waves (or possibly other particle/wave phenomena) are carrying away angular momentum. Either way you chose to explain it, angular momentum is conserved. There is experimental support too. We know it can happen from studying the orbital decay of binary pulsars (which collectively lose angular momentum to the rest of the universe).

As you probably can guess, I really don't see a serious distinction between these viewpoints. My take however is that abstracting out the interaction with the rest of the universe (which in my view is what is happening when you consider a Machian model) means you are losing some information about the nature of that interaction. For example, what is the flow of energy and momentum from the MLT?

2. I don't have any concerns about the model below dm<m. But I do disagree with your interpretation of the dm>m region, particular your use of the term "wormhole". Since the physical experiments are well in the dm<m range, I don't see a serious issue here.

3. General relativity and electromagnetism. They would predict a slightly higher inertia for a charged capacitor over an uncharged capacitor. That's pretty much all you need to generate net thrust (or perhaps torque). My view is that the Machian model of physics is already incorporated into general relativity (and related approximations like special relativity and Newtonian mechanics).

4. Thanks for the tip.

5. It still remains that there is an observation gap here.  Not every physicist buys into general relativity. And even if there were uniform consensus, there are on occasion experiments to verify the consensus. Keep in mind that experimental physicists find ever shrinking upper bounds on the mass of a photon even though it is generally accepted that the mass of the photon is zero. Novel observations that back a commonly accepted view still are useful.

GI-Thruster, thanks for the invite. I'll send you my email address.
Karl Hallowell

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #173 on: 03/17/2009 04:43 PM »
Em, yes. . .BOB Baker.  I knew that.  :-)

In case I haven't been clear, there's a large number of tech savvy persons both writing in this thread and lurking.  If any of you want to be included on Jim Woodward's weekly general mailing so you're up to date as to the work at Fullerton, please drop me a note.  Write a sentence or two about who you are, what you do and why you're interested to track progress at Fullerton and Dr. Woodward may include this as an introduction to the list when he adds you, so that others know a little about you.

The general list is NOT a discussion list.  It is an update list to those in USG and private industry who want to keep tabs on the progress at Fullerton.  If however you'd like to be involved in discussions of the physics, engineering, data analysis, etc., you can write me or Paul March and we'll include you in those sorts of discussions.  It's a great way to learn about Mach Effects and where we hope to see this all go in the future.  Just drop me a note and I'll write you back from my normal email.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #174 on: 03/18/2009 07:06 AM »
3. General relativity and electromagnetism. They would predict a slightly higher inertia for a charged capacitor over an uncharged capacitor. That's pretty much all you need to generate net thrust (or perhaps torque). My view is that the Machian model of physics is already incorporated into general relativity (and related approximations like special relativity and Newtonian mechanics).


Any torques generated can be nulled to create precessionary thrust by using two counterrotating devices. I've also done this on a hydraulic model.
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 mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #175 on: 03/18/2009 07:11 AM »

Wow, this is a long sentence. I did look at the URL and I notice that this Woodward is in humanities.


Woodward has his BS and MA in Physics. Trying to discredit him as some sort of sociologist playing at physics wont work.
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 khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #176 on: 03/18/2009 10:52 AM »
3. General relativity and electromagnetism. They would predict a slightly higher inertia for a charged capacitor over an uncharged capacitor. That's pretty much all you need to generate net thrust (or perhaps torque). My view is that the Machian model of physics is already incorporated into general relativity (and related approximations like special relativity and Newtonian mechanics).

Any torques generated can be nulled to create precessionary thrust by using two counterrotating devices. I've also done this on a hydraulic model.

Precession is a torque. I have no idea what precessionary thrust is.

But come to think of it, there are mechanical ways to convert torque into thrust. If I have a spinning wheel (say a donut-shaped rotating space station and I release mass that was clamped to the wheel, then I have generated thrust. The released mass (which is moving) is the reaction mass, and my station must have an equal and opposite momentum in order to preserve momentum of the system. Airplane propellers immersed in atmosphere are another example. These examples involve some sort of propellant, so I don't know how relevant they would be to us in this thread.
Karl Hallowell

Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #177 on: 03/18/2009 11:18 AM »

Wow, this is a long sentence. I did look at the URL and I notice that this Woodward is in humanities.


Woodward has his BS and MA in Physics. Trying to discredit him as some sort of sociologist playing at physics wont work.

We all want so badly for something like the Woodward effect to be true.  But everyone should know that its easier to trust a BS over a high school diploma, an MA  (what the hell is an MA anyway?  Physics is a science, why doesn't he have an MS?) over a BS, and a PhD over an MA or MS.

So you have to admit that a PhD who can back up Woodward's derivations and experimental explanations would significantly help the credibility.  Because despite how much I want it to be true, I was firmly convinced that its all not true by reading the J.H. Whealton report.  At http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/pres/111404.pdf

So I come to this thread asking if there is a formal rebuttal to the above in existence or in the works.

Thank you.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2009 11:19 AM by LegendCJS »
Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #178 on: 03/18/2009 12:30 PM »
As I said earlier. Woodward's PhD is in the History of Gravity Physics.  That's why it's considered a humanity.  It is however also Physics.

Yes, a formal rebuttal of the Oak Ridge Boys existed before they wrote the above.  They are obviously wrong in several ways and these were pointed out at length by both Dr. Woodward and by Tom Mahood.  I'll see if I can get hold of the rebuttal if you like.  It's long.  Longer than the ORB's complaint since answering an objection is far more work than making an objection.

So you know, the ORB's tried to do a replication of the work and failed.  They failed because they did not follow direction and their apparatus was flawed.  They then came up with these objections that demonstrate they can't do the math or high school physics (no joke.) 

So yeah, I'll see what I can get hold of for you or perhaps Paul has Tom's rebuttal?

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #179 on: 03/18/2009 12:44 PM »
"But come to think of it, there are mechanical ways to convert torque into thrust. If I have a spinning wheel (say a donut-shaped rotating space station and I release mass that was clamped to the wheel, then I have generated thrust. The released mass (which is moving) is the reaction mass, and my station must have an equal and opposite momentum in order to preserve momentum of the system."

This is true.  FYI, the patent office is full of patents for propellantless propulsion by folks who thought they could get thrust from a gyroscope.  You can't because all momentum is conserved.  All these types of proposed propulsion devices have failed because they attempt to violate simple physics.

Tags: