Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 419867 times)

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • Liked: 173
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1600 on: 12/18/2011 01:49 AM »
Yeah, I remember asking about Mach Effect in PhysicsForums way back. Unfortunately, its reliance on things like Non-Locality put it outside of what's realistically possible. Too bad - I guess we'll just have to keep looking for some other macguffin.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1601 on: 12/18/2011 02:19 AM »
Don't be so quick to call this an open and shut case. We have not heard anything from Paul or Woodward on this matter yet.

The need for non-locality (as I understand it) stems from the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces. This can only be explained in one of two ways: elliptical, instantaneous constraint equations as described by Ciufolini and Wheeler, or the advanced/retarded waves interpretation of electrodynamics.

Here's Ron Stahl's thoughts on the matter (on Steve's experiment)

http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2215&start=720

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 676
  • Liked: 262
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1602 on: 12/18/2011 04:10 AM »
Don't be so quick to call this an open and shut case. We have not heard anything from Paul or Woodward on this matter yet.

The need for non-locality (as I understand it) stems from the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces. This can only be explained in one of two ways: elliptical, instantaneous constraint equations as described by Ciufolini and Wheeler, or the advanced/retarded waves interpretation of electrodynamics.

Here's Ron Stahl's thoughts on the matter (on Steve's experiment)

http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2215&start=720

GeeGee:

Woodward's M-E conjecture is selfconsistent, but still incomplete IMO since it still does not include QM effects that we know exists in real world components like ceramic dielectrics.  In the end though the only thing that will really matter is one of us floating the test article into the conference room under its own power.  We can then argue which of our cherished scientific paradigms will have to scuttled to explain this fact and then replace it with another equally bright idea of the day.  Meanwhile back to the lab...

Best,
Star-Drive

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1603 on: 12/18/2011 04:37 AM »

GeeGee:

Woodward's M-E conjecture is selfconsistent, but still incomplete IMO since it still does not include QM effects that we know exists in real world components like ceramic dielectrics.  In the end though the only thing that will really matter is one of us floating the test article into the conference room under its own power.  We can then argue which of our cherished scientific paradigms will have to scuttled to explain this fact and then replace it with another equally bright idea of the day.  Meanwhile back to the lab...

Best,

What about Steve's claim of an error in the derivation itself?

Quote
I would note that there is a math error in the derivation of the Woodward effect's theory. If one uses Sciama's result of (Phi+phi)/c^2 = -1/G, one cannot treat the speed of light as a constant and phi as a variable.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 676
  • Liked: 262
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1604 on: 12/19/2011 03:49 PM »

GeeGee:

Woodward's M-E conjecture is selfconsistent, but still incomplete IMO since it still does not include QM effects that we know exists in real world components like ceramic dielectrics.  In the end though the only thing that will really matter is one of us floating the test article into the conference room under its own power.  We can then argue which of our cherished scientific paradigms will have to scuttled to explain this fact and then replace it with another equally bright idea of the day.  Meanwhile back to the lab...

Best,

What about Steve's claim of an error in the derivation itself?

Quote
I would note that there is a math error in the derivation of the Woodward effect's theory. If one uses Sciama's result of (Phi+phi)/c^2 = -1/G, one cannot treat the speed of light as a constant and phi as a variable.

GeeGee:

Here is Woodward's reply:

"Paul,

There is no mistake in the derivation.  Lajoie's experiment was done ignoring the bulk acceleration condition.  That is, it made no provision for a 1 omega acceleration of the capacitors in question as they were being charged and discharged.  As for why he didn't do more, sounds like an excuse.  I offered to provide the additional capacitors needed to do the further work at the time and was ignored."

Form your own conclusions."


I also just posted this reply of my own to Aceshigh & GIThruster about the same U of Washington M-E experiment topic:

GIThruster & Aceshigh:

A clarification: Woodward's SPESIF-2011 Stargate paper not only requires bulk acceleration relative to the distant stars of the energy storing dielectric to express the M-E, but also requires bulk acceleration in the vector direction of the applied E-field in the dP/dt energy storing dielectric. In other words, the M-E's predicted transient mass fluctuations can only be expressed under a very specific set of circumstances, (dv/dt & dv/dt direction, dP/dt and wave-front phasing), and if one does not supply ALL of these elements concurrently and in concert with each other, the expected M-E mass transient signal will NOT be expressed. And that assumes you are using a rotary experiment such as Woodward used in the 2008/2009 time period as GIThruster already noted. If you are trying to detect a unidirectional force from an M-E based thruster system as your M-E proof of principle test, the requirements list needed for success just got a lot longer than just using the rotary based experiments.

BTW, running any of these types of M-E experiments at hundreds or even thousands of Hz frequencies is just plain asking for failure due to the very small predicted mass fluctuations/forces generated at these low operating frequencies, dependent on the applied bulk acceleration & direction. Only Woodward’s attention to detail in his 2008/2009 rotary experiment and the application of up to 800 gees of bulk acceleration allowed him to demonstrate the M-E at his chosen operating frequency of 40.0 kHz. And that was only after he found out that the mundane voltage squared (V^2) electrostrictive signal also generated by the Y5U ceramic used in the experiment actually drives the generation of the M-E signal. The devil IS in the details…

Best,
Star-Drive

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1605 on: 12/20/2011 06:16 AM »
Now I'm kind of curious why Steve would neglect the bulk acceleration condition. This is just my opinion, but it seems from Steve's tone that he is not at all interested in pursuing "fringey" physics.

By the way Paul, there was a recent paper published by Brazilian physicists on substituting gravity for the Higgs as the mechanism for generating mass (though I'm not sure substitute is a good word here, as Wilczek has pointed out several times that the majority of mass of ordinary matter has origins that have nothing to do with the Higgs) that Woodward and co might be interested in. The authors calls this "modified mach's principle." Is it a sign of mach's principle making a return in theoretical physics?

The gravitational mechanism to generate mass II
« Last Edit: 12/20/2011 06:19 AM by GeeGee »

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 695
  • Liked: 8
  • Sydney
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1606 on: 12/20/2011 06:32 AM »
Now I'm kind of curious why Steve would neglect the bulk acceleration condition. This is just my opinion, but it seems from Steve's tone that he is not at all interested in pursuing "fringey" physics.

By the way Paul, there was a recent paper published by Brazilian physicists on substituting gravity for the Higgs as the mechanism for generating mass (though I'm not sure substitute is a good word here, as Wilczek has pointed out several times that the majority of mass of ordinary matter has origins that have nothing to do with the Higgs) that Woodward and co might be interested in. The authors calls this "modified mach's principle." Is it a sign of mach's principle making a return in theoretical physics?

The gravitational mechanism to generate mass II
Machs principle never left theoretical physics
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1607 on: 12/20/2011 07:56 PM »
Machs principle never left theoretical physics

No, but it's certainly not discussed as much. All the attention has been focused on dark energy, dark matter and the Higgs mechanism.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 676
  • Liked: 262
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1608 on: 12/21/2011 04:32 AM »
Machs principle never left theoretical physics

No, but it's certainly not discussed as much. All the attention has been focused on dark energy, dark matter and the Higgs mechanism.

GeeGee:

Jack Sarfatti's comments on the Mach's Principle and mass paper you pointed to is attached.  Note the yellow highlights and comments embedded in the paper by Sarfatti.

PS; Woodward liked the paper as well.

Best,
Star-Drive

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Liked: 83
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1609 on: 12/21/2011 05:56 PM »
Paul, any chance you guys might contact Mario Novello or Eduardo Bittencourt?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9090
  • Liked: 556
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1610 on: 12/24/2011 02:40 PM »
This month's Photonics Spectra had an interesting picture of what gravity waves might look like.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1611 on: 12/26/2011 12:13 AM »
Paul,

Has Goatguy and Sebtel's objections on the M-E ever been discussed on Woodward's mailing list? Did Woodward respond to them?

Offline kurt9

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1612 on: 12/28/2011 04:50 AM »
Loll and Ambjorn have done some CDT computer modeling that shows that wormholes are not possible.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.0352v1.pdf

Can anyone here comment on this?

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1613 on: 12/31/2011 12:46 AM »
Not qualified to comment on that, but my guess is this has to do with the quantum foam picture where tiny wormholes pop into and out of existence.

You might have better luck e-mailing this as a new topic to Woodwards group.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1614 on: 01/16/2012 09:01 PM »
In his wormhole paper, Woodward said:

"What about Heisenberg’s UP [Uncertainty Principle] argument about energy and confinement size?
Well, if you believe that the UP is a statement about our ability to measure reality, rather than an assertion
about the inherent nature of reality, you won’t have a problem with the negative bare mass ADM electron.
After all, how big something is is not the same thing as how accurately you can measure its position. If
you think the UP is an assertion, with Bohr and his followers, about the inherent nature of reality, you
will have a problem with all this. And you won’t be likely to think it possible to build stargates, ever.
You may be right."

This article came out today which seems to suggest Bohr's interpretation of the HUP is correct (unless I misunderstood). What are the implications for the ADM negative bare mass solution?


Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 0
  • Bulgaria, EU
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1615 on: 02/08/2012 12:03 PM »
If I was a billionaire and I give you 10 billion dollars and say to you: "I wanna have a propellantless field propulsion in 5 years.", Will you get it??

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1616 on: 02/08/2012 08:19 PM »
If I was a billionaire and I give you 10 billion dollars and say to you: "I wanna have a propellantless field propulsion in 5 years.", Will you get it??

Paul could probably provide a better answer to that, but Jim has mentioned on radio shows and on the mailing list that breakthrough propulsion research is very cheap. About $100,000 would probably be enough to see unambiguous results (meaning much higher thrust levels that could not be explained by anything other than a novel effect).

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 676
  • Liked: 262
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1617 on: 02/09/2012 04:33 AM »
If I was a billionaire and I give you 10 billion dollars and say to you: "I wanna have a propellantless field propulsion in 5 years.", Will you get it??

Paul could probably provide a better answer to that, but Jim has mentioned on radio shows and on the mailing list that breakthrough propulsion research is very cheap. About $100,000 would probably be enough to see unambiguous results (meaning much higher thrust levels that could not be explained by anything other than a novel effect).


Guys:

Woodward has already demonstrated +/-10 micro-Newton in vacuum using his latest shuttler design running at ~40 kHz.  My MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles repeateldy demonstrated 1-to-10 milli-Newton in Faraday shielded configurations several years ago while in air since I couldn't afford a working vacuum system at the time.  We are now trying to replicate those results under a hard vacuum in the JSC Eagleworks Lab when we finally get the lab up and running, hopefully in 2-to-3 months now.  Past that it all depends what the replication investigation efforts bring to us.  If we again see what I saw in the home lab back in the 2004 through 2006 time frame, then we crank up the power and frequency to see if the MLT-2004_Rev-A can generate 100's of milli-Newtons running at 3.68 MHz on our new torque pendulum system.  However, if we see nothing out of this newly revidsed test article, then this could all have been just a bad dream for me.  Considering Woodward's experimental results to date though, I'm betting on seeing at least the same 4-to-10 milli-Newtons I obsered before.  Cross your fingers...

Best,

Paul M. 
Star-Drive

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1618 on: 02/09/2012 05:15 AM »
Paul,

I don't think anyone has asked you this but when you ran the experiment in 2004, the bulk acceleration condition was not known, correct?

If so, how can you be confident in the results?

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 0
  • Bulgaria, EU
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1619 on: 02/09/2012 05:45 AM »


Guys:

Woodward has already demonstrated +/-10 micro-Newton in vacuum using his latest shuttler design running at ~40 kHz.  My MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles repeateldy demonstrated 1-to-10 milli-Newton in Faraday shielded configurations several years ago while in air since I couldn't afford a working vacuum system at the time.  We are now trying to replicate those results under a hard vacuum in the JSC Eagleworks Lab when we finally get the lab up and running, hopefully in 2-to-3 months now.  Past that it all depends what the replication investigation efforts bring to us.  If we again see what I saw in the home lab back in the 2004 through 2006 time frame, then we crank up the power and frequency to see if the MLT-2004_Rev-A can generate 100's of milli-Newtons running at 3.68 MHz on our new torque pendulum system.  However, if we see nothing out of this newly revidsed test article, then this could all have been just a bad dream for me.  Considering Woodward's experimental results to date though, I'm betting on seeing at least the same 4-to-10 milli-Newtons I obsered before.  Cross your fingers...

Best,

Paul M. 
That's nearly an ion engine thrust :o

Tags: