Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 333517 times)

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
  • Liked: 0
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1635 on: 03/27/2012 04:06 AM »
Harry White's and Paul March's PDF at NETS2012 about "Advanced Propulsion Physics: Harnessing the Quantum Vacuum"

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3082.pdf

Quote
Historical test results
have yielded thrust levels of between 1000-4000 micro-
Newtons, specific force performance of 0.1N/kW,
and an equivalent specific impulse of ~1x1012 seconds.

Where does that Isp come from?

cheers, Martin

See attached slide.
Star-Drive

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1636 on: 03/27/2012 05:09 AM »
I'm hoping you can re-create that thrust signal this summer. It would be a major advance for M-E research if you guys could get repeatable milliNewton thrust.
« Last Edit: 03/27/2012 05:10 AM by GeeGee »

Online simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6762
  • Liked: 53
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1637 on: 03/27/2012 04:55 PM »
Any idea what the ISS DTO would involve? Presumably a recreation of the torsion-bar setup, but externally mounted to get real vacuum?

Online MP99

  • Armchair rocket scientist.
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5077
  • Liked: 31
  • UK
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1638 on: 03/27/2012 10:06 PM »
Harry White's and Paul March's PDF at NETS2012 about "Advanced Propulsion Physics: Harnessing the Quantum Vacuum"

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3082.pdf

Quote
Historical test results
have yielded thrust levels of between 1000-4000 micro-
Newtons, specific force performance of 0.1N/kW,
and an equivalent specific impulse of ~1x1012 seconds.

Where does that Isp come from?

cheers, Martin

See attached slide.

Thanks, but I'm not seeing that derivation unless your power source is pure matter/anti-matter with 100% conversion efficiency to usable power. ISTR you mentioning a spacecraft a while ago powered by an H2/O2 power-cell. By retaining the reactants, only the mass of the power output (by E=MC2) goes overboard.

If I've remembered that correctly, that seems to be completely the wrong way to analyse the situation. Instead, you are producing power by reacting H2 & O2. To calculate Isp correctly, the reaction product (water) should be sent overboard, and the thrust equated to the rate of consumption / disposal of hydrolox.

cheers, Martin

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
  • Liked: 0
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1639 on: 03/28/2012 04:45 PM »
Harry White's and Paul March's PDF at NETS2012 about "Advanced Propulsion Physics: Harnessing the Quantum Vacuum"

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3082.pdf

Quote
Historical test results
have yielded thrust levels of between 1000-4000 micro-
Newtons, specific force performance of 0.1N/kW,
and an equivalent specific impulse of ~1x1012 seconds.

Where does that Isp come from?

cheers, Martin

See attached slide.

Thanks, but I'm not seeing that derivation unless your power source is pure matter/anti-matter with 100% conversion efficiency to usable power. ISTR you mentioning a spacecraft a while ago powered by an H2/O2 power-cell. By retaining the reactants, only the mass of the power output (by E=MC2) goes overboard.

If I've remembered that correctly, that seems to be completely the wrong way to analyse the situation. Instead, you are producing power by reacting H2 & O2. To calculate Isp correctly, the reaction product (water) should be sent overboard, and the thrust equated to the rate of consumption / disposal of hydrolox.

cheers, Martin

Martin:

   Try to remember that we are NOT talking about rockets in this example, which you are trying to do, though I tried to use a standard rocket parameter to bridge the gap between the two propulsion concepts and to demonstrate the performance enhancements that such a field propulsion device could bring to bear on the tyranny of the rocket equation.   Instead we are talking about gravity/inertial (G/I) field propulsion systems that use the ambient G/I field to generate the Mach-Effect (M-E) momentum transfers from the vehicle to the field and thus to the rest of the universe that created this field in the first place.  So the G/I field propulsion process does not require the expulsion of mass or E&M radiation away from the vehicle to generate the noted reactive forces, for it directly reacts with the G/I field instead just like a ship uses its propeller to interact with the ocean's water to generate thrust.   So per Woodward's M-E conjecture, the G/I momentum transfer expressed in any M-E based propulsion device comes directly about from cyclically bulk accelerating a locally contained mass that is concurrently experiencing a time rate of change of energy and power along with a third delta-mass rectifying force that converts these mass fluctuations into a unidirectional force.   Past that you need to read Woodward’s papers if you still have questions.

BTW, in Sonny White’s Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation (QVF) conjecture, Woodward’s G/I field is replaced with the Quantum Electrodynamic Vacuum field and the local reactive forces are generated and conveyed by momentum fluxes created in this QED vacuum field by the same process used to create momentum fluxes in the G/I field, but Sonny uses MHD plasma rules to quantify this local momentum interaction where Woodward does not.  As to whether Woodward’s or White’s approach to this propellantless propulsion problem turns out to be closer to our reality is yet to be determined, but obtaining comprehensive and high quality data on these types of propulsion devices is the only way we will find out.  In the end analysis though, Woodward and/or White’s conjectures may turn out to be wrong or just provide us some partial insights into the truths needed to build the impulse and warp drives needed to build our starships.

PS to GeeGee:  There are many forms and venues for scientific peer review and publishing papers in a peer reviewed journal is but one of them.  Let me say that Sonny's QVF/MHD conjecture has passed muster in at least one think tank in the USA that can't be mentioned at the moment, so we press forward to generate data that will prove or disprove Sonny's current QVF/MHD conjecture, while Woodward does the same for his.  Let's hope that at least one of them is near the mark...

Paul March
Star-Drive

Offline kurt9

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1640 on: 03/29/2012 02:44 PM »
And we're to have a definitive answer to both concepts by the end of this summer. Is this correct?

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
  • Liked: 0
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1641 on: 03/30/2012 04:37 AM »
And we're to have a definitive answer to both concepts by the end of this summer. Is this correct?

Dr. White and I hope to have at least two Q-Thruster test articles run through their paces by the end of September.  We also hope to have started the warp-field interferometer work as well, but Sonny keeps getting dragged off to work on other more pressing NASA projects at the moment, so we will see how far that Eagleworks project gets when Sept shows up. 

As far as the M-E work is concerned, you'll have to ask Dr. Woodward what his M-E test schedule is going to be for the rest of this year, but at least he has already demontrated a 10uN thruster back in January that could be the M-E in action or it could be something else equally interesting, but he won't be able to tell IMO until he can figure out the frequency scaling of the thrust effect he is measuring with his current shuttler test article.  Whether Dr. Woodward will be able to accomplish that feat this year is TBD.

Best,
« Last Edit: 03/30/2012 04:38 AM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline tdperk

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1642 on: 03/31/2012 12:26 PM »
"Let's hope that at least one of them is near the mark..."

And clearly enough so it is easily accepted.

Ignaz Semmelweiss.

Online MP99

  • Armchair rocket scientist.
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5077
  • Liked: 31
  • UK
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1643 on: 04/01/2012 03:01 PM »
Harry White's and Paul March's PDF at NETS2012 about "Advanced Propulsion Physics: Harnessing the Quantum Vacuum"

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3082.pdf

Quote
Historical test results
have yielded thrust levels of between 1000-4000 micro-
Newtons, specific force performance of 0.1N/kW,
and an equivalent specific impulse of ~1x1012 seconds.

Where does that Isp come from?

cheers, Martin

See attached slide.

Thanks, but I'm not seeing that derivation unless your power source is pure matter/anti-matter with 100% conversion efficiency to usable power. ISTR you mentioning a spacecraft a while ago powered by an H2/O2 power-cell. By retaining the reactants, only the mass of the power output (by E=MC2) goes overboard.

If I've remembered that correctly, that seems to be completely the wrong way to analyse the situation. Instead, you are producing power by reacting H2 & O2. To calculate Isp correctly, the reaction product (water) should be sent overboard, and the thrust equated to the rate of consumption / disposal of hydrolox.

cheers, Martin

Martin:

   Try to remember that we are NOT talking about rockets in this example, which you are trying to do, though I tried to use a standard rocket parameter to bridge the gap between the two propulsion concepts and to demonstrate the performance enhancements that such a field propulsion device could bring to bear on the tyranny of the rocket equation.   Instead we are talking about gravity/inertial (G/I) field propulsion systems that use the ambient G/I field to generate the Mach-Effect (M-E) momentum transfers from the vehicle to the field and thus to the rest of the universe that created this field in the first place.  So the G/I field propulsion process does not require the expulsion of mass or E&M radiation away from the vehicle to generate the noted reactive forces, for it directly reacts with the G/I field instead just like a ship uses its propeller to interact with the ocean's water to generate thrust.

Paul,

completely clear on the "propellantless" element of the topic title, but you're really missing the point here.

Isp relates the consumption of consumables against the amount of impulse generated. If you are producing electricity via H2/O2 in a fuel cell, a kilogram of consumables will be converted to a certain amount of impulse through the thruster. That is clearly the basis on which Isp is calculated, and works irrespective of whether you throw the reactants overboard.



Again, I ask the simple question - given "specific force performance of 0.1N/kW", how much impulse could you generate from consuming 1kg of H2/O2?

I presume you'd need to start from the energy density of H2/O2, apply efficiency of the fuel cell and note losses in your electrical sub-system to calculate net energy at the thruster from 1kg of fuel. If you multiply this by "specific force performance of 0.1N/kW" shouldn't it give Isp in m/s? (Or divide by g to give it in seconds.)

For instance, if H2 has an energy density of 123 MJ/kg, then H2/O2 at stochiometric ratio has energy density of 13.66 MJ/kg.

Assuming 33% combined efficiency in fuel cell output and conditioning power for the MLT (a WAG!), the thruster will see 4.55 MJ/kg of fuel consumed.

4550 KJ/kg * 0.1 N/(kJ/s) = 455 N.s/kg (by mass) = 455 m/s. Divide by g to get a specific impulse of 46.5s (by weight), about 1/10th that of an RL-10.

Obviously, if you have better figures for H2 energy density (apologies for using Wiki figures), or efficiency of the fuel cell and electrical sub-system that would affect the final result.



Of course, you're not limited by chemical energy densities - power it from a solar cell and you can keep going for ever. However, with SEP having such high Isp it will compete quite well for Dawn-like solar powered missions.

cheers, Martin

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5001
  • Liked: 164
  • Australia
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1644 on: 04/16/2012 07:25 AM »
"Alternative derivation of the Feigel effect and call for its experimental verification" - O. A. Croze

http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3656

Maybe sometime in the next decade someone will test it :)

When someone is wishing for a pony, there's little to be gained by suggesting a unicorn would be ever better.. ya know, unless it's sarcasm.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 156
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1645 on: 07/05/2012 12:18 PM »
funny that this thread has died here, since there were plenty of news posted at Talk Polywell forum and NextBigFuture blog.

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 0
  • Bulgaria, EU
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1646 on: 08/10/2012 02:20 PM »
Any recent news?

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 156
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1647 on: 08/10/2012 02:34 PM »
there are several recent news and discussions at Talk Polywell...

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 0
  • Bulgaria, EU
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1648 on: 08/10/2012 05:30 PM »
there are several recent news and discussions at Talk Polywell...
I haven't been here since several months and I lost the records. Can you update me pls.

Offline sanman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1651
  • Liked: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1649 on: 08/17/2012 09:52 PM »

completely clear on the "propellantless" element of the topic title, but you're really missing the point here.

Isp relates the consumption of consumables against the amount of impulse generated. If you are producing electricity via H2/O2 in a fuel cell, a kilogram of consumables will be converted to a certain amount of impulse through the thruster. That is clearly the basis on which Isp is calculated, and works irrespective of whether you throw the reactants overboard.

But dude, as the ESA's SMART-1 probe to the Moon showed, you don't even need all your consumables to even be onboard in the first place. Well, sure the propellant for that mission was onboard the spacecraft, but the energy used to accelerate and eject it wasn't - it was coming from the Sun.
So you don't necessarily need your energy to come from an onboard fuel cell, because it could come from solar power even.

Your argument seems to be that action-reaction by propellant expulsion is always going to be more efficient than action-reaction by other means such as Mach-Woodward (ie. so why bother with Mach-Woodward at all?)

Well, you may not always be able to gather propellant mass along the journey if you run out, but you'll probably still be able to gather light energy.

« Last Edit: 08/17/2012 09:58 PM by sanman »

Tags: