Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 425481 times)

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 676
  • Liked: 262
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1620 on: 02/09/2012 07:42 PM »
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?

GeeGee:

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

I’m not sure what you are trying to ask here.  The experimental results are what they are, what was lacking at the time in 2004 was a rational explanation for WHY the MLT-2004 thrust signature was approximately two orders of magnitude higher than predicted by Andrew Palfreyman’s linearized Mach-Effect (M-E) math model derivation, both of which were reported on in my AIP/STAIF-2004 and STAIF-2006 publications.  However, you are right in that I didn't know during the last half of 2003 when I designed and built the MLT-2004 that the bulk acceleration of the majority of the cap dielectric’s ions was a major requirement for the expression of the M-E.  All I knew at the time was that just the Ti ions in the barium titanate unit crystal cell (UCC) had to move in some manner while storing energy in the local UCC electric fields.   What I did end up knowing by the middle of 2004 was that the recorded MLT-2004 thrust signature was approximately two orders of magnitude higher than predicted by Andrew’s M-E math model.   So I went looking for the reasons why this might be the case, and because I knew that the M-E was based on inertial effects, any phenomenon that induces inertial effects was fair game to investigate.  Therefore for me the first likely candidate for this larger MLT-2004 thrust signature was taking into account the piezoelectric effect that induces bulk motions in the cap’s surfaces, since this extra motion would enhance the already present Ti ionic motions in the BaTiO3 UCC.

In experimental physics as in everything else we do, on occasion, out of no particular brilliance on your own part, one gets lucky.  It turned out that out of pure dumb luck, I had picked the one Cera-Mite based BaTiO3 Y5R dielectric that just so happened to have the highest piezoelectric response of all of the Vishay/Cera-Mite's family of BaTiO3 ceramic alloys, which includes their N4700, Y5R, Y5U and Z5U ceramic mixes.   I originally picked the Y5R material because I was looking for a more thermally stable material than Woodward’s Y5U dielectric and since the Cera-Mite Y5R dielectric had ~1/2 the dielectric constant of Woodward’s Y5U dielectric, it should and was a lot more thermally stable with temperature variations, a problem that was and still is a problem with Woodward’s test articles that still use the Y5U material.   Now I did not discover until during the 2005-to-2007 time frame that I had really lucked out with the choice of the Y5R dielectric.  That period was when I was testing the piezoelectric response of over 100 caps of each of Cera-Mite’s four main dielectric blends along with dozens of caps from several other ceramic capacitor vendors such MuRata, AVX, HEI and Xircom.   What these piezo tests told me was that Woodward’s Y5U ceramic alloy had an order of magnitude lower d33 piezo response than what my chosen Cera-Mite Y5U dielectric had.  And when Nembo Buldrini finally pointed out to Woodward in ~2008 that the M-E derivation inherently required the bulk acceleration of the locally accelerated dielectric relative to the rest of the cosmos, the dots from all my piezo testing started to click together for me and the rest of the M-E group.   And once I figured out how to calculate the surface accelerations of the dielectric disc’s piezo induced surface motions over the last year or so, and how to apply this knowledge to the M-E and QVF/MHD math models, the MLT-2004’s test results were no longer two orders of magnitude down from experimental results, but more like within a factor of two of the recorded results. 

Now Mother Nature & Murphy being what they are, I’m not expecting the new MLT-2004_Rev-A testing program at the JSC Eagleworks lab to go at all smoothly as I would like, but with the Woodward’s continuing semi-positive, (thrust levels less than 100uN), test results over the years and my own “Beginners Luck” tests leading the way, we hopefully will have some interesting milli-Newton times ahead of us in the lab this spring.   

Best,

Paul M.
Star-Drive

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Liked: 92
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1621 on: 02/11/2012 09:37 PM »
Great explanation Paul! I wondered the same thing as Gee Gee, especially back a few years ago when it seemed that you were going to have to abandon the substantial work done on the 2008 MLT.

Things are looking up quite a bit now by comparison. I am eagerly awaiting publication of Woodward's book.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1622 on: 02/11/2012 10:04 PM »
It's just a shame that progress is so slow, with the shoe-string budget and all.

Paul:

Thanks for answering. It seems I was confused on the experimental setup and how these things work.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1623 on: 03/07/2012 11:23 PM »
I don't know if anyone's heard, but STAIF is back in the form of STAIF II. Here is the agenda for March 13th.

http://www.staif2.org/images/pdf/STAIF_II_Agenda_12.pdf

Note Woodward's paper is titled "Massless propulsion". This is the first time I've heard M-E propulsion called that.

Offline BarryKirk

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1624 on: 03/08/2012 12:06 PM »
Oh good... I was hoping somebody would post to this thread and bump it back up.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Liked: 92
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1625 on: 03/08/2012 04:35 PM »
I don't know if anyone's heard, but STAIF is back in the form of STAIF II. Here is the agenda for March 13th.

http://www.staif2.org/images/pdf/STAIF_II_Agenda_12.pdf

Note Woodward's paper is titled "Massless propulsion". This is the first time I've heard M-E propulsion called that.

I notice Woodward is no longer moderating panels as he did in previous STAIFs.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1626 on: 03/08/2012 06:31 PM »
Actually according to the agenda he was the chair for one of the panels this year.

http://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/SPESIF2012_callforpapers.pdf

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Liked: 92
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1627 on: 03/08/2012 11:43 PM »
are SPESIF and STAIF affiliated?
« Last Edit: 03/08/2012 11:43 PM by cuddihy »

Offline mboeller

  • Member
  • Posts: 84
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1628 on: 03/23/2012 01:03 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
« Last Edit: 03/23/2012 01:04 PM by mboeller »

Online MP99

  • Armchair rocket scientist.
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6304
  • Liked: 333
  • UK
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1629 on: 03/23/2012 06:01 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

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1630 on: 03/23/2012 07:10 PM »
I wouldn't put too much stock into Harold White's explanation for anomalous thrust. His hypothesis has never been peer reviewed.


Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1632 on: 03/26/2012 04:49 AM »
I saw in one of the papers above that Puthoff's paper, "Ground State of Hydrogen ...", was referenced (he's somewhat nutty). A more serious investigation was done by Cole at BU:

http://www.bu.edu/simulation/publications/dcole/PDF/SwedenCole2005.pdf

Doesn't explain preferred states but it's still interesting.

Offline UncleMatt

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1633 on: 03/26/2012 07:24 PM »
Can Paul please tell us what promise, if any, he thinks graphene capacitors may hold for his research?

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 676
  • Liked: 262
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1634 on: 03/26/2012 07:56 PM »
Can Paul please tell us what promise, if any, he thinks graphene capacitors may hold for his research?

If you are referring to graphene based electrochemical super capacitors, see: http://www.ias.ac.in/chemsci/Pdf-Jan2008/9.pdf , I see no applications for it in the M-E or QVF venues at this time.
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 676
  • Liked: 262
  • 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 »

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7054
  • Liked: 213
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: 6304
  • Liked: 333
  • 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: 676
  • Liked: 262
  • 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

Tags: