Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 663630 times)

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #220 on: 04/15/2009 01:37 AM »
Virgin too, perhaps. They might at least provide a free zero-gee test of the equipment. But at this stage I guess Star-Drive and co. need to iron out the wrinkles and have a rigorous testing methodology. One of the things that let the air out of cold fusion's tires was the fact that they seem to need neutron background radiation to work, shielding them made the experiments dud out. So every possible testing variable has to be formalised, I guess. Who knows if there is some environmental variable being overlooked here.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9494
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #221 on: 04/15/2009 01:41 AM »
Internet forums and email lists, I have found, are not good places to try to attract support for breakthrough technologies. They are full of either kooks who have no pull and no money,

The words are in the wrong order.  It should be:

Internet forums and email lists are places that attract kooks, who have no pull and no money, trying to get support for supposed breakthrough technologies.
« Last Edit: 04/15/2009 01:42 AM by Jim »

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #222 on: 04/15/2009 01:47 AM »
"Internet forums and email lists, I have found, are not good places to try to attract support for breakthrough technologies. They are full of either kooks who have no pull and no money, or curmudgeons whose livelihoods are threatened by disruptive technologies."

I have to agree.  Paul is just sharing his frustration that he's been at this for so long and we're not seeing the people with the purses respond, despite what seems unequivocal evidence on the rotator of Mach-Effects.

But personally, I think the best course of action is not to look for funding just yet.  I think once more that Jim Woodward has got it right.  Generate enough thrust under the proper conditions, meaning with the proper controls; such that you have a "demonstrator" then I think the world will be knocking on your door.

BTW, anyone here who does regular technology searches, you'll want to avoid the latest garbage from Pravda about a propellantless thruster running on a satellite.  Its a hook intended to plant a Trojan in your computer so beware what pages you open in that regard.

There are people who will listen. You need to have someone on the board of directors on your side, a champion really. The CEO is best.

As for grassroots internet stuff, this technology requires a great deal of skill to get any detectable results. Getting other people in the electrical engineering field interested is key. I don't have the chops to wire something like this up but I do know someone who does.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #223 on: 04/15/2009 02:02 AM »
Internet forums and email lists, I have found, are not good places to try to attract support for breakthrough technologies. They are full of either kooks who have no pull and no money,

The words are in the wrong order.  It should be:

Internet forums and email lists are places that attract kooks, who have no pull and no money, trying to get support for supposed breakthrough technologies.

And if it is an actual breakthrough technology? Then kick it as hard as possible and see if it'll break.
« Last Edit: 04/15/2009 02:07 AM by Lampyridae »
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #224 on: 04/15/2009 02:15 AM »
Heh!  Look, let me just remind, there have been plenty of folks who have offered to provide finacial support for Woodward's work.  I originally connected with the group because I was contracted to look for technologies worthy of investment.  Jim routinely turns down offers for financial support.  That does make him stand out in the crowd and I think, worth watching if you have the patience.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #225 on: 04/15/2009 02:57 AM »
Heh!  Look, let me just remind, there have been plenty of folks who have offered to provide finacial support for Woodward's work.  I originally connected with the group because I was contracted to look for technologies worthy of investment.  Jim routinely turns down offers for financial support.  That does make him stand out in the crowd and I think, worth watching if you have the patience.

Thanks for stating that.

Oh btw I just found and listend to Prof Woodward's recent appearance on The Space Show podcast:

http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1114
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 #226 on: 04/15/2009 03:09 AM »
Virgin too, perhaps. They might at least provide a free zero-gee test of the equipment. But at this stage I guess Star-Drive and co. need to iron out the wrinkles and have a rigorous testing methodology. One of the things that let the air out of cold fusion's tires was the fact that they seem to need neutron background radiation to work, shielding them made the experiments dud out. So every possible testing variable has to be formalised, I guess. Who knows if there is some environmental variable being overlooked here.

Back when every university and their uncle was trying to replicate the original  CF experiments, one thing I noticed was that virtually nobody was trying to replicate the experiment EXACTLY. Each was trying different methods and materials in hopes of finding an alternative method they could patent themselves. I was in Seattle at the time and I noticed that the UW team was using iron on one of their electrodes, didnt see any neutrons, so they pronounced Pons and Fleischman frauds.

Theres been a lot more experiments since then and some have seen something, others have not and there remains a lot of contention and no unit that produces net power. CF hasn't even reached the point that the Farnsworth Fusor was at 40 years ago.

The Mach Effect, however, seems rather replicable IF it is done properly and relatively inexpensive compared even to the budget the Polywell folks have operated on.
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 Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4185
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 207
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #227 on: 04/15/2009 03:25 AM »
It would be interesting if the device actually works but it also appears to be a relativity low thrust device like an ion rocket.
Even if it does work you'll still need a conventional rocket or RLV to get a vehicle equipped with it into orbit.
« Last Edit: 04/15/2009 03:25 AM by Patchouli »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 856
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #228 on: 04/15/2009 03:58 AM »

It would be interesting if the device actually works but it also appears to be a relativity low thrust device like an ion rocket.
Even if it does work you'll still need a conventional rocket or RLV to get a vehicle equipped with it into orbit.

Patchouli:

You didn't read or at least understand my scaling slide that I appended earlier.  Let me summarize it here again for you.  There are no currently known theoretical limits on the thrust generation capability of a gravinertial (G/I) field drive.  The only limits on the maximum thrust production for a given device are related to the design implementation details of the G/I thruster in question, i.e., how much power it can handle before it burns out and/or flys apart, just like you can build small rockets or large rockets.  G/I based thrusters with million pound thrusts or larger are conceivable and probably buildable once the G/I sciences are fully understood.  When creating a new science and technology, we take baby steps before we walk, and we have to walk before we run, but IMO we have at least taken the first few steps in this new journey.
Star-Drive

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #229 on: 04/15/2009 04:05 AM »
"It would be interesting if the device actually works but it also appears to be a relativity low thrust device like an ion rocket.  Even if it does work you'll still need a conventional rocket or RLV to get a vehicle equipped with it into orbit."

Yes and no.

Woodward's theory distinguishes between two different terms: the "impulse term" derived from fluctuating mass as it oscillates back and forth when its mass is fluctuated below 100%, and the "wormhole term" that comes into play only when one fluctuates the mass beyond 100%.  In all of Woodward's experiments, he has avoided "wormhole territory" where dm>m obtains so he is seeing the expected smaller thrusts.  In Paul March's experiments, he has violated the wormhole boundary meaning, he was running at higher frequency and seeming to obtain a mass fluctuation > 100%.  That means Paul has a contribution from the wormhole term that Jim is not yet looking for--the effects of negative mass and the contribution of negative inertia.

Just to recap, Jim has been using very careful controls: running in vacuum, running on the ARC Lite, using Mu metal etc. to show he is not getting E or M coupling, ion wind or thermal artifacts.  Paul ran his 2002 test items way past the wormhole boundary--way past dm=m so one should expect much larger thrusts.  But again, Paul was not set up with sufficient vacuum to make strong claims about what he saw.

So yes--if one never violates the wormhole boundary, then the thrusts and thrust efficiency will be relatively small--though still useful for things like satellite station keeping sans propellant.  If on the other hand we one day we find that operation in wormhole territory works, then we can have these very high thrust efficiency designs like the 1 N/W thrusters Paul presumed in the WarpStar 1 design.

So truly, "yes and no."
« Last Edit: 04/15/2009 04:20 AM by GI-Thruster »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 856
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #230 on: 04/15/2009 02:54 PM »
"It would be interesting if the device actually works but it also appears to be a relativity low thrust device like an ion rocket.  Even if it does work you'll still need a conventional rocket or RLV to get a vehicle equipped with it into orbit."

Yes and no.

Woodward's theory distinguishes between two different terms: the "impulse term" derived from fluctuating mass as it oscillates back and forth when its mass is fluctuated below 100%, and the "wormhole term" that comes into play only when one fluctuates the mass beyond 100%.  In all of Woodward's experiments, he has avoided "wormhole territory" where dm>m obtains so he is seeing the expected smaller thrusts.  In Paul March's experiments, he has violated the wormhole boundary meaning, he was running at higher frequency and seeming to obtain a mass fluctuation > 100%.  That means Paul has a contribution from the wormhole term that Jim is not yet looking for--the effects of negative mass and the contribution of negative inertia.

Just to recap, Jim has been using very careful controls: running in vacuum, running on the ARC Lite, using Mu metal etc. to show he is not getting E or M coupling, ion wind or thermal artifacts.  Paul ran his 2002 test items way past the wormhole boundary--way past dm=m so one should expect much larger thrusts.  But again, Paul was not set up with sufficient vacuum to make strong claims about what he saw.

So yes--if one never violates the wormhole boundary, then the thrusts and thrust efficiency will be relatively small--though still useful for things like satellite station keeping sans propellant.  If on the other hand we one day we find that operation in wormhole territory works, then we can have these very high thrust efficiency designs like the 1 N/W thrusters Paul presumed in the WarpStar 1 design.

So truly, "yes and no."

G/I Thruster:

Even if we restrict ourselves to delta mass ratios (dm/m) of less than one, large thrusts values can still be obtained.  You just have to use more dielectric mass and stronger crossed B-fields to get there.  In other words, not going into Mach-Effect (M-E) wormhole-term territory simply means that the thrust to weight ratios for the G/I thrusters will be lower than if we can use the dm/m>1.0 operating mode.  And since I've already demonstrated that this can be accomplished anyway, albeit not in a vacuum, then we can be pretty sure that the dm/m>1.0 operational mode will be available to us engineers in the end analysis.  And that's a good thing to, for we really need the M-E wormhole-term to take the next step past the impulse drive plateau.  Hint, think about the Alcubierre drive…
Star-Drive

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #231 on: 04/15/2009 07:55 PM »
"The Mach Effect, however, seems rather replicable IF it is done properly and relatively inexpensive compared even to the budget the Polywell folks have operated on."

The rotator experiment that shows M-E rather than thrust is very inexpensive to do.  Any normal lab that would consider this sort of work probably has most of what they need, like scopes, readily available.  The power system takes some time to build but there is no need for vacuum, etc. so it's a cheap experiment.

Thrusters are a very different story.  For them you need a thrust balance and hard vacuum in addition to the power system.  Still, lab's like George Hathaway's and EarthTech could pretty easily do a replication.  But again, labs like that don't do replications unless they are paid.  That is after all how they earn a living.

In my experience, it is completely true that replicators seldom follow instruction and almost NEVER replicate an experiment exactly.  It's because of this that Jim Woodward is willing to build a rotator for anyone who has the skills and desire to use it--because he knows then he can expect the same results.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #232 on: 04/17/2009 04:53 PM »
In building one of these things, how do you know that they have given you enough information to build a working model?  Naturally, they're trying to patent a device, so I'm missing something here.  Are you supposed to figure out the missing pieces to the equations or mechanism yourself?

Secondly, what is the power source of this drive?  A small nuclear plant?  Where's the energy coming from?  It's one thing to build a device which can levitate itself off the lab bench while attached to a thick cable, and another to build a guidable, non-attached unit.

And am I correct in understanding that the device has not yet actually levitated any material, such as a thin sheet of gold, or something?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #233 on: 04/17/2009 06:15 PM »
Anyone interested in doing this work is invited to do so.  The rotator is not patented since it is a proof of concept demonstrator with no practical value other than to demonstrate the science is correct.  The thrusters all have patents either granted or pending so they are protected.

I know that people get enough info to build these devices because I have built them myself.  I'm not an engineer or physicist so it would be worthless for me to try to do these experiments on my own.  For thrusters you need a real lab with hard vacuum, etc. (although I do have a vacuum oven but that's another story.)  However, I can save Jim time and effort by building the thrusters for him which I have done.  I built about a dozen MLT's over a year ago and Jim ran them.  Jim is doing his own builds on the UFG at present because these are more difficult to assemble than the MLT's were and I'm not set up to do that kind of assembly, despite 20+ years shop experience.

None of the thrusters levitate.  We often joke about how the people with the purses will need to have a test item floated into their offices before they listen.  When running in the 40 kHz range Jim uses a 2kW  Carvin audio amp that has a flat response to 70 kHz.  He generally puts a couple hundred watts on a test item.  I own a cheap NADY amp that's capable of putting out 1kW and cost me $75 so these systems are very cheap.  It's the impedance matching that is expensive and difficult.  However, these power systems are not difficult to miniaturize.  The higher the frequency one runs at, the smaller a switching inverter can be used and A123 makes batteries the size of a wine cork capable of putting out over 400 watts for a short period of time.  So the power is there to go self contained and this has been done in the past with a power system that was half the size of a Coke can.  Before we turn our attention to this sort of thing in earnest, we have to verify the science.  Then we can start talking miniaturizing power systems, prototyping, development, etc. That is all TRL 7+ work.

I'm not sure if that answers your question but let me be very plain: these thrusters do not levitate other objects.  They produce thrust so the issue of gold leaf is a non issue.  This is not "anti-gravity" research.  This is gravinertial research for generating propellantless thrust.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3030
  • Liked: 532
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #234 on: 04/17/2009 08:57 PM »
So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL?  Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009.  So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?

I am not a sceptic, I would be *happy* if someone will prove that 3rd law of Newton can be worked around.

It can be the case that the idea, being rather radical, does require verification by more than one team. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, in this case, reproduction of the effect by multiple teams.

Do not assume that "they" (meaning scientific community) have ill intentions. No amount of complaining that "they" don't take it seriously would help. Ony more independent verifications will.

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2791
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #235 on: 04/17/2009 09:24 PM »
"Lifters" use air as reaction mass, and need energy for the ionization and acceleration of the air. I wouldn't class it as propellantless since you need both an energy source and reaction mass. It's more like a propeller aircraft.

Tethers can use electrodynamics in low Earth orbit to respin after tossing a payload, and can produce the power for that from solar cells so it could be propellantless propulsion I guess that could perhaps work indefinitely since the momentum exchange is with the mass of Earth.

Then there are the solar sails, electrodynamic and electrostatic sails, all propellantless propulsion if thought of as that way that use the sun's light or the solar wind (which is an ion stream).

With a tether, you can use electric power to raise the orbit, or if you lower the orbit, you can generate electrical power.

It is very viable to use a tether on a station to maintain orbit without propellant.  You would need to up the size of the solar arrays to generate the energy required.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #236 on: 04/17/2009 09:24 PM »
So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL?  Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009.  So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?

I am not a sceptic, I would be *happy* if someone will prove that 3rd law of Newton can be worked around.

It can be the case that the idea, being rather radical, does require verification by more than one team. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, in this case, reproduction of the effect by multiple teams.

Do not assume that "they" (meaning scientific community) have ill intentions. No amount of complaining that "they" don't take it seriously would help. Ony more independent verifications will.

Firstly, please stop asserting that M-E gets 'around' Newtons third law any more than a game of tug-of-war does. The M-E reacts against the rest of the universe, period. While I understand thats a bit big of a concept for some folks, honestly though, it shouldn't be for anybody who has moved beyond the idea that anything outside our solar system is just little light bulbs on a big sphere.
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 Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2791
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #237 on: 04/17/2009 09:36 PM »
Quote
hmh33 - 13/5/2008  6:30 AM

Quote
Peacekeeper - 12/5/2008  1:30 AM
Then what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive :)  Can it replace today's rockets?

No, because it is fake science.

EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.

I am NOT impressed by this site.  It states that just like a laser ring gyro is a closed system and can measure rotation rate, this drive is a closed system that can produce force.  Newton and all have NO problem with a closed system measuring rotation rate.  No need to introduce Special Theory effects to explain this.  Explaining away the closed system problem by using the laser ring gyro as an analogy tells me these people are clueless.

However I do hope I am wrong and they produce a really nice rocket engine someday.  I for one will not be investing my money in this technology.

Danny Deger

P.S.  Maybe there is some change of momentum of the photons that balances the change of momentum of the rocket.  This would make the device not violate the law of the conservation of momentum.
Danny Deger

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #238 on: 04/17/2009 09:43 PM »
So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL?  Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009.  So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?

I am not a sceptic, I would be *happy* if someone will prove that 3rd law of Newton can be worked around.

It can be the case that the idea, being rather radical, does require verification by more than one team. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, in this case, reproduction of the effect by multiple teams.

Do not assume that "they" (meaning scientific community) have ill intentions. No amount of complaining that "they" don't take it seriously would help. Ony more independent verifications will.

We're in complete accord which is why I have mentioned that this work is open for anyone to participate in.  We do need to see independent verifications.  However, we also need to recognize the difference between proving the science (which requires replications and participation of the larger science community) and proving the technology (which requires only adherence to things described in the TRL level descriptions.)  It's quite common to have the second without the first and it's a fair bet that most classified technology is this way.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #239 on: 04/17/2009 09:50 PM »
Quote
hmh33 - 13/5/2008  6:30 AM

Quote
Peacekeeper - 12/5/2008  1:30 AM
Then what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive :)  Can it replace today's rockets?

No, because it is fake science.

EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.

I am NOT impressed by this site.  It states that just like a laser ring gyro is a closed system and can measure rotation rate, this drive is a closed system that can produce force.  Newton and all have NO problem with a closed system measuring rotation rate.  No need to introduce Special Theory effects to explain this.  Explaining away the closed system problem by using the laser ring gyro as an analogy tells me these people are incorrect.

However I do hope I am wrong and they produce a really nice rocket engine someday.  I for one will not be investing my money in this technology.

Danny Deger

P.S.  Maybe there is some change of momentum of the photons that balances the change of momentum of the rocket.  This would make the device not violate the law of the conservation of momentum.

I have never met anyone who believes this scheme as explained doesn't violate conservation.  However, it's also true that Sonny White claims his ZPF theory explains how such a thing could generate thrust.  So it's possible, if Dr. White's physics is sound (which I can't say--I'm not a ZPFer), that Shawyer literally stumbled upon a thruster design that works and he really doesn't understand why it works!

But I'm not saying it works.  If it did would he have lost his Brit gov funding?

Tags: