Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 666115 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9495
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #180 on: 03/18/2009 01:11 PM »

Snip

They are obviously wrong in several ways

Snip

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.) 


Sounds like the argument is applicable to both sides.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2009 01:12 PM by Jim »

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #181 on: 03/18/2009 01:20 PM »
Well, Jim, if you want to make an issue of the fact I can't do this sort of physics you can, but I was not around when this happened.  This trajedy occured years ago because the Oak Ridge Boys acted with a total disregard for the truth.  They had plenty of opportunity to learn from the guys at Fullerton and instead, maintained they had it all figured out.  They did not.  Now this paper is on record and the rotator is daily demonstrating these guys are wrong.

That's embarrassing. . .
« Last Edit: 03/18/2009 09:36 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline mrmandias

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • US
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #182 on: 03/18/2009 01:25 PM »

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.

Some of us who may not be interested in or able to join your discussion lists and mailing lists still appreciate the periodic updates in this forum.  Thanks.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #183 on: 03/18/2009 03:21 PM »
You're most welcome, mrmandias.

Legend,

"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.:

There are three relevant papers Paul and I are trying to figure a way to post.  There is Tom's first response (this was all back in '97-2002) which I believe concerns chiefly the protocols used and the claim by ORNL that the Fullerton results can be explained as thermal effects.  There was Jim Woodward's response which is written at the level of a PhD physicist and which most people will not be able to grasp fully (myself included.) Finally there is a simple empirical study of the "California Booster", which utterly puts the cap on the ORNL complaint by showing they do not understand the physics.  In addition, there is a more history based telling of the story, a recounting of events that I'm trying to get clearance to post here as it is fascinating.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2009 09:44 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #184 on: 03/18/2009 05:05 PM »
Thanks Paul.  Lets see if I can load the cali booster paper. . .

And Legend, please do stop back and let us know what you think of these responses.

Update: my apologies to those 6 of you who have already DLed the wrong paper.  I had loaded one of the two Paul had already left for your appraisal.  Here attached should be the cali booster paper.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2009 06:36 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #185 on: 03/19/2009 02:46 AM »
A telling of these events by Jim Woodward:

The Oak Ridge Boys (1997 – 2002):

"In the fall, following the BPP Workshop, David Hamilton of the DoE Engineering Directorate contacted us at CSUF.  He was interested in doing a replication of the work going on in the lab and had secured preliminary support from higher level management.  The following January he, John McKeever (ORNL), Bruce Tuttle (ceramicist, Sandia NL), and Don King (Sandia) came out to CSUF to discuss their plans with Tom and me.  We were joined by Paul March (then working for Lockheed who had been tasked by Graham O’Neil to look into exotic propulsion schemes).  They told us of their intent to build devices considerably larger than those we had been working with – hockey pucks as they came to be called.  We cautioned them that scaling by a couple of orders of magnitude or more in one step was not an advisable approach.  They built hockey pucks nonetheless.  And the following September a couple of Sandia folks were back soliciting our suggestions.
 
The plans conveyed to us in the fall of ’98 indicated that our advice had been taken.  But at that time another issue came up.  One of the folks at ORNL hit upon the idea that consideration of the vdm/dt term in Newton’s second law had been ignored in the development of Mach effects, and that when it was taken into account, complete cancellation of expected effects occurred.  For a few weeks it looked like this might in fact be a reasonable argument (alas, even to me, notwithstanding that I had actually considered this possibility several years earlier and dismissed it for sound reasons).  Of those involved, only Paul March was clear headed enough (and stubborn enough not to be cowed by a bunch of physics types) to reject the argument.  vdm/dt is not irrelevant to consideration of a closed system (it completes ma + vdm/dt = 0 for a rocket for example, but it doesn’t mean that rockets do not accelerate).  But it is irrelevant for a Mach effect thruster (as one can always pick the instantaneous frame of rest of the thruster where vdm/dt = 0 for analysis).  vdm/dt, in the case of a Mach effect thruster, represents the momentum flux in the field which does not act on the thruster (as, analogously, it represents the momentum flux in the exhaust plume of a rocket which does not act on the rocket).

Getting folks to appreciate this point of elementary physics proved almost impossible in some cases.  Ultimately, a “California booster” was built to demonstrate that as a matter of fact vdm/dt “forces” do not necessarily act on the moving object undergoing a change in mass.

While this was transpiring, one of the Oak Ridge Boys had the clever idea that gravity had been ignored in the derivation of Mach effects.  Accordingly, he asserted that gravity had to be added into the Mach effect field equation.  Miraculously, when this was done, Mach effects disappeared!  (There was a sign error in this calculation.  Otherwise they would have gotten double gravity effects.)  No amount of explaining that the Mach effect derivation is a derivation of the gravity field equation (where the Poisson equation for gravity is recovered when time-dependent terms are set equal to zero) could convince them that gravity was already accounted for in the Mach effect field equation (that is, the d’Alembertian of the potential is equal to some source terms).

What really was going on at this time it seems is that the Oak Ridge Boys actually got the experiment they described to us in the fall of ’98 running in December of that year.  Almost immediately they got “interesting” results.  And the experiment was taken out of their hands.  Or so reliable sources (you know who you are) told us.  Repeated attempts to confirm this development with the local leader of the Oak Ridge Boys by Tom and me met with silence.  The rest of this story goes that the work, a black project that continued to yield “interesting” results was eventually abandoned when the extreme risks of working blind with the wormhole term were contemplated.  If there is anything to this story, then the Oak Ridge Boys’ attacks on Mach effects should be understood as a disinformation operation."

-------------------------

Just as an aside, I was talking with my brother the lawyer about all this today and he agrees with me that the most sensible interpretation of these events is that ORNL got positive results and some other USG branch such as CIA stepped in and handed them a gag order.  The work was moved and the scientists at ORNL would have gotten some small compensation.  I asked Rodg what he thought of hiring a private investigator to determine if there's a path of money to follow the scientists and he replied "You could do that.  That would be a great way to end up in jail.  This is classified national security stuff.  You sniff around, prepare to pay the consequences."
 
So maybe we just need to focus on generating thrust. . .

« Last Edit: 03/19/2009 03:37 AM 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 #186 on: 03/19/2009 05:55 AM »

Snip

They are obviously wrong in several ways

Snip

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.) 


Sounds like the argument is applicable to both sides.

Ya, I love it when you build something that works and some dude with a bit piece of sheepskin on his wall says its impossible for what is working to exist. That sort of event USED to be called 'scientific progress'.

Been there, done that, got the federal gag order.
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 #187 on: 03/19/2009 12:27 PM »
A friend was telling my brother how he loves doing advanced metallurgy except that there are no patents.  "What do you mean no patents? my brother, the one trained in patent law; asked.

"Oh yeah, every time anyone in this country comes up with something truly useful, USG turns up and takes it.  No one gets patents these days.  They just get settlements."

The land of the free. . .

Of course, if USG gagged the ORNL scientists rather than Jim Woodward, then they didn't even have to pay out much in the way of a settlement.

Offline mrmandias

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • US
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #188 on: 03/26/2009 09:05 PM »
I'm just a caveman lawyer, but if this theory can be experimentally verified, wouldn't it disprove, or at least require serious modifications to your current working model?

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23198/

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #189 on: 03/27/2009 01:49 AM »
I'm not fit to pass judgement on this either but until a physicist happens along I should point out that the arxiv site is not peer reviewed.  It is a place where some folks post early works but most times, where cranks post only works that would never pass scrutiny with a real journal.  You'd be amazed at the rubbish that can be found there.  Says nothing about your find, however; save that it needs a real review.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9495
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #190 on: 03/27/2009 03:58 AM »
This thread has turned to crap with its nonsense talk of gag orders and the USG hiding things.  Right up there with the oil companies buying up plans for 300 mpg carburetors and Area 51 alien technology.

Anybody claiming such a thing has no credibility



Offline kneecaps

  • No Bucks, no Buck Rogers
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #191 on: 03/27/2009 08:22 AM »
This thread has turned to crap with its nonsense talk of gag orders and the USG hiding things.  Right up there with the oil companies buying up plans for 300 mpg carburetors and Area 51 alien technology.

Anybody claiming such a thing has no credibility


 ;D   I second that!
Allow subject to scream. In space no one will hear.

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #192 on: 03/27/2009 08:51 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.

MA = Master of Arts. Seems he gave up science after his first degree!!! I, on the other hand, am a first class MPhys = Master of Physics.

Outranked and overruled! Hehe
« Last Edit: 03/27/2009 08:54 AM by Celebrimbor »

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #193 on: 03/27/2009 08:53 AM »
This thread has turned to crap with its nonsense talk of gag orders and the USG hiding things.  Right up there with the oil companies buying up plans for 300 mpg carburetors and Area 51 alien technology.

Anybody claiming such a thing has no credibility




I disagree, Jim. This thread turned to crap at approximately this point:

The only true way to make a starship is to be able to create a spacedrive that can modifiy gravity and/or inertia.  Everthing else talked about here except perhaps the EM drive is just for use on solar system scale missions. 

Gene Rodenberry pretty much nailed it when he created the Starship Enterprise that was equipped with inertia modification "impulse-drive" system for solar system based travels and a wormhole based "warp-drive" for interstellar jumps measured in days to weeks and not tens to hundreds of years for both the ship crew and the folks back home.  If any of you are curious how this might be done, we have to look at the confulence of General Relativity and Quntum Mechancis to first find the means to transiently modify the inertial properties of mass by manipulating its stored energy and bulk acceleration of that mass relative to the distant stars.  That Mach/Lorentz technology will provide us the Startrek like "impluse drive" we need to start down this path.  We then use this same "gravinertial" technology to create traversalble wormholes shortcuts through spacetime that our starships can use to star hop.   

If you think this is all science fiction that's your privilege, but the peer reviewed experimental data showing that this is all possible with enough development effort put into it over the next 25-to-50 years is readily aviable on the web and elsewhere, like the American Institute of Physics (AIP) if you care to look for it. 

These are people who are trying to shoe-horn reality into fantasy. It makes me feel quite ill.
« Last Edit: 03/27/2009 08:58 AM by Celebrimbor »

Offline kneecaps

  • No Bucks, no Buck Rogers
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #194 on: 03/27/2009 09:37 AM »

These are people who are trying to shoe-horn reality into fantasy. It makes me feel quite ill.

Of even greater concern to me, is how it can all sound feasible to the layman. Large swaths of society simply take things they read on the internet at face value. Pseudo/Bad science can sound very attractive.
Allow subject to scream. In space no one will hear.

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #195 on: 03/27/2009 09:50 AM »
It is playing to peoples fantasies and half-held beliefs. Its in the same league as cold-reading and sayances. For the most part I feel that people can believe what they like, so long as they can take reasonable criticism. However, this website is made of better stuff and I'm chatting away here merely to draw attention so that this thread might be closed down...

Offline kneecaps

  • No Bucks, no Buck Rogers
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #196 on: 03/27/2009 09:58 AM »
It is playing to peoples fantasies and half-held beliefs. Its in the same league as cold-reading and sayances. For the most part I feel that people can believe what they like, so long as they can take reasonable criticism. However, this website is made of better stuff and I'm chatting away here merely to draw attention so that this thread might be closed down...

Closing it down just fuels the zeal....
Allow subject to scream. In space no one will hear.

Offline mrmandias

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • US
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #197 on: 03/27/2009 01:43 PM »
These folks aren't asking for money and they're actually doing experiments.  What's the harm in that?  And, no, by harm I don't mean offending someone's self-important certainty about how things work.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #198 on: 03/29/2009 08:59 AM »
This thread has turned to crap with its nonsense talk of gag orders and the USG hiding things.  Right up there with the oil companies buying up plans for 300 mpg carburetors and Area 51 alien technology.

Anybody claiming such a thing has no credibility


Jim, I've had more experience running up against the government classifying 'inconvenient' patent applications that you have any idea about.

Lets start with the guy who invented the underwater microphones used by the Navy for sub detection today. That guy invented them to listen to whales. When he submitted the patent, the Navy classified the design cause it was so good, came to his lab and seized all his equipment, and now in order to use his own invention he has to ask the Navy for permission to use their equipment.

Imagine how THAT feels.

Theres plenty more stories like that where that one came from.

How about cutting it with attacking people who complain about getting burned by the security apparatus?
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.

Online Herb Schaltegger

Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #199 on: 03/30/2009 05:48 PM »
If nothing else, threads like this keep the real spaceflight-related threads cleaner. :)
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Tags: