Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 688805 times)

Offline blazotron

  • Non est ad astra mollis e terris via
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #280 on: 04/22/2009 02:34 AM »
<snip>
In blazotron’s analysis of the theory paper, he states: “Then [Shawyer] states, completely without support, that the force imparted by a wave with group velocity vg is 2nhfA*(vg/c).  Nowhere in the text is it explained why we should be using the group velocity of the wave to calculate force.”  I think blazeotron is somewhat incorrect in stating where in the text is this explained.  The author alludes to:

CULLEN A.L. ‘Absolute Power Measurements at Microwave Frequencies’ IEE proceedings Vol 99 Part IV 1952

as explaining where he gets the above derivation.  But this is not an actual explanation, so semantically I guess, blazotron is right!

Please post Cullen’s paper on this forum.  A simple web search will not provide this paper online.

My impression was that the reference to that paper was in regards to the derivation of the radiation pressure.  Looking at it again, it seems a little ambiguous to me which he is referring to.  That article is hard to get, but I put a request in to the library here to pull the journals from the remote storage they are located in now.  Hopefully I will have them to post before I leave for the expedition.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #281 on: 04/22/2009 04:03 AM »
cutting-edge system being flown by ESA.

What cutting-edge system?  Ion propulsion is not new.

Ion is not new.  It's had millions in development for more than 4 decades.  But as the text says, no normal propulsion system can do what it does.  GOCE itself is new.  Very new.  A good standard to measure against when talking about satellite station-keeping:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GOCE/SEMSZCEH1TF_0.html

G/I Thruster:

For the record, the GOCE electric ion thruster's maximum Isp is 3,500 seconds per the following document:

http://earth.esa.int/goce04/goce_proceedings/46_edwards.pdf

That's not very high even by ion rocket standards, but it still makes the Mach-2MHz during its peak performance period have an Isp ratio of 1.2x10^12 sec / 3,500 sec = 342,857,143.0 to 1.0 in comparsion to the GOCE ion rockets.  I guess we could say that was a reasonable improvement in propulsion efficiency for a new system... :)
« Last Edit: 04/22/2009 04:05 AM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #282 on: 04/22/2009 05:45 AM »
I think it's kinda silly to calculate Isp based on mass-energy expenditure, unless you're powering your thruster with a total conversion plant.  Sure, it satisfies Tsiolkovsky's equation, but with modern energy supplies like hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells (or even hydrogen/boron-11 fusion reactors) you have to bring a preposterous amount of fuel to get a significantly non-unity mass ratio that way, so it's not really an informative representation...

If you assume expended fuel is dumped overboard, a reasonable estimate can be obtained for WarpStar 1 using conventional procedures.  At 1 N/W, we get

(1 N.s/J)*(1.504e7 J/kg)/(9.80665 N/kg) = 1.534e6 s

Still not bad - according to Wikipedia, that's 15 times as high as the theoretical maximum for an Orion...

If you keep expended fuel on the ship (possibly a better alternative than wasting all that water, even though performance suffers a bit), it gets complicated.  Technically the mass-energy method is more correct, but as mentioned above it's uninformative.  It also reaches a singularity with a solar-powered thruster, where (except for solar panel ablation and such) no mass at all is expended.

For a solar-powered thruster, or even a thruster-on-a-flywheel-powered thruster, perhaps we could back-calculate an effective Isp out of Tsiolkovsky's equation using the power system mass and mean time between failures:

dV = F*t/m -> F*t/(m*g*ln(MR)) = Isp

where t is the MTBF for the power system, m is the total mass and MR is the ratio between m and the non-power-system mass.  This should also work reasonably well for a fueled thruster if you take t as the fuel exhaustion time and MR as the familiar fueled/dry mass ratio:

WarpStar 1: (3.2e10 N.s)/((26465 kg)*(9.80665 N/kg)*ln(1.087)) = 1.47e6 s

which is fairly close to the water-dumping maximum calculated above, probably due to the near-unity mass ratio. Of course, this method results in an Isp that depends on spacecraft parameters...  Isp really wasn't designed to deal with propellantless thrusters...

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 #283 on: 04/22/2009 03:09 PM »
I would say that ion propulsion is pretty cutting edge; it’s not the date the idea was floated, it’s more like the date the tech becomes widespread.

And, 400 watts from a cork sized battery?  I don’t have access to this technology.  Is this actually a capacitor battery, one that you charge the heck out of and then can use to power the thrusters?

Apologies for not being able to move beyond Cullen’s paper.  I’m not knowledgeable enough about the field to move beyond the equation I get stuck on.  How does group velocity factor into this?

And I’m still struggling with thrust efficiency; they seem unbelievably high.  The principle of MLT, if I understand correctly, is the direct conversion of energy to momentum, which bypasses the inefficiency of propelling hot gas or ions as in typical propulsion systems.  At the same time there is the payload savings of not having to carry all the propellant and rocket infrastructure, which just weighs down the craft, especially when empty.

The suggestion seems to be that the Carvin amp or whatever, is a laboratory expedient.  The proposed self contained energy supply would be some sort of super capacitor whose energy could be tapped for momentum conversion.  This capacitor would carry more energy than a nuclear reactor of the same energy output.  Is that correct?

Even so, current output for a 2kw system is on the order of micro-newtons.  It would still have to be scaled up to a 1kw system putting out milli-newtons, as in GOCE.
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 #284 on: 04/22/2009 05:13 PM »
"And, 400 watts from a cork sized battery?  I don't have access to this technology.  Is this actually a capacitor battery, one that you charge the heck out of and then can use to power the thrusters?"

Yes, these are the new batteries from A123 that will be powering the next generation of electric vehicles like the Chevy Volt.  I picked up a test kit with 3 of these cells a year or two ago and sent it to a PhD EE friend who benched them for me.  They do indeed put out over 400 watts each and have a C rating of more than 40.  But they're batteries, not supercaps.  The barium titaniate "supercap" technology from EEStor is reported to have an even higher power density but that's not on the market yet.

"The suggestion seems to be that the Carvin amp or whatever, is a laboratory expedient.  The proposed self contained energy supply would be some sort of super capacitor whose energy could be tapped for momentum conversion.  This capacitor would carry more energy than a nuclear reactor of the same energy output.  Is that correct?"

Well the point is that no one would ever try to fly something like the Carvin.  Have you thought what the extension cord would weigh?  :-)  Amps, generators, invertors, power supplies of all sorts can be miniaturized and they work on completely different principles when they're driven by a DC source as opposed to something you plug into the wall.  Now all that aside, the source that powers the inverter, or whatever, the place we get the power from--has to be suitable to the task you want to accomplish.

When Paul was originally writing the WarpStar paper he and I discussed quite a bit what is a suitable illustration.  1 N/W baseline figure was chosen because is was viewed as an attainable goal and yet, not so overwhelmingly efficient that the illustration would be rendered trite.  With this sort of thrust efficiency, it still matters where you get your power from.  He was forced to choose the highest energy density system he could find for a 12 hour duration flight (5 hours each way plus margins.)  Now if you had 10 N/W MLT's, you could easily fly to LEO on batteries and they wouldn't even need to be good batteries.  You could fly WarpStar 1 to Mars regularly, etc.  The point of the illustration is not to make outrageous claims.  It's to get us start thinking about how electric spacecraft are so very different from rockets.  Once you replace "boost and glide" with "the one gee solution" everything is different.  We need to think about that.

So to answer your question about a cap vs a fission reactor, that's not really a good handling of the issue.  Caps have to be charged after every use.  Fission reactors are "charged" much less often and they run for a very long time (typically 5 years I think) on that charge.  Fission is a nice source for spacecraft that stay out for many months at a time but supercaps would be great for something robotic flying round trip to LEO every 3 hours.  Each power system has a place or rather, each application has reasons to optimize by using one power source rather than others.

And BTW, yes I know GOCE doesn't have the Isp of Deep Space 1, but for a first application of a low thrust efficiency M-E thruster, we are probably looking at satellite station keeping, not robotic travel to Jupiter's icy moons.  So GECO really is the more applicable technology to compare against.  So far, the discovery phase lab experiments seem to have a huge advantage over the cutting edge-tech on GECO.

Someone tell me if I remember correctly--NASA spends $50 million annually boosting hydrazine to ISS to keep her on orbit?  If we had commercial thrusters with efficiencies like what Paul saw, we could replace all the hydrazine on ISS and save about half a billion dollars over the course of a decade.  That's just one application.

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 #285 on: 04/22/2009 07:11 PM »
So the power source is envisioned as either a super battery or a super cap, which will have to be recharged upon return from, say, the Moon, roughly a ten to twelve hour trip.

But if we're accelerating our craft, say an Orion Service Module sized craft (3700kg), 1G halfway to the Moon, and 1G deceleration, landing, and returning the same way, that's a fair amount of power, much more than they're currently envisioning for a more leisurely five day trip.  I understand that the technology isn't quite ready for this scale, but that would be the goal of Warpstar, wouldn't it?

Backing up to the more nearly attainable satellite orbit tweakage function, the sticking point is currently mass of power supply and impedance matching circuitry, right?

And further backing up to that blasted Carvin amp.  It's true, then, what I suggest; that the device is still plugged into the wall.  Back at the lab.  Which is fine, because my Mac amp is only playing CD's.
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 #286 on: 04/22/2009 07:38 PM »
One can envision any suitable power source.  In the WarpStar design, GM fuel cells generate electricity from the H2 stored on board.  I suggest you look at the paper.  It's a fun read.

Things like impedance matching are not a significant technical hurdle.  There are probably hundreds of thousands of EE's who know how to do this and it is routinely done in all electronics.  The trouble here only comes when you're working alone with no budget.  Jim is a genius but he's not an EE.  If he had an EE working full time in the lab, much more than twice the work would be getting done.

The significant hurdles have to do with things like: building a demonstrator that produces so much thrust one can't quibble or ignore it, solving the ceramic ageing issue, designing thermal stability systems, etc.  None of this is particularly challenging so far as we know.  For instance, there's already been a lot of conjecture concerning the ageing issue.  If we were to take some ceramic from a played out MLT or UFG, slice it and stick it under a scanning electron microscope, we'd have answers instantly.  Maybe not all of them but in just a few minutes we'd be on the road to discovery.  Trouble is, you don't get time on a SEM without a budget.

Yes, all Jim's tests are with the test items plugged into the wall.  When it comes time for a new kind of demonstration, it's a simple matter to have someone build a self -contained, battery operated power system and we know who to go to for this since they've done it before.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #287 on: 04/22/2009 09:56 PM »
G/I Thruster:

"Someone tell me if I remember correctly--NASA spends $50 million annually boosting hydrazine to ISS to keep her on orbit?"

Dependent on what Russia is charging us today and tomorrow, the last figure I saw for ISS reboost costs was ~$150 million per year plus the $40 million taxi service charge for each astronaut brought up to and ferried back home.  All in the name of international cooperation...

93143

“Of course, this method results in an Isp that depends on spacecraft parameters...  Isp really wasn't designed to deal with propellantless thrusters...”

You can measure propulsion efficiency on an engine level or a vehicle level and both approaches have their merits and shortfalls dependent on the analysis goals.  The first performance metric I tendered, i.e., the Newton/Watt metric, is much more engine specific than the equivalent Isp metric, which like its rocket brethren, is more vehicle performance centric, but both are usable dependent on the goal of the analysis and the intended audience.  Since most rocket technologists already understand specific impulse, that metric provides a readymade performance ruler that we can all point to when comparing conventional rockets with these M-E field propulsion driven vehicles that directly convert gravinertial field energy into a directed momentum flux in the G/I field that can in turn be applied to the vehicle with some efficiency number applied to this conversion process.  That’s where the Newton/Watt figure makes the most sense to use though one could also use a heat pump like coefficient of performance (COP) metric as well, but the end results are the same.  You put in XXX.X Watts of locally supplied catalytic power into the M-E based field drive from a local vehicle energy source like a battery, fuel cell, or nuclear power plant, and the M-E drive then produces XXX.XX Newton of thrust for XXXX number of seconds.   How long that thrust is produced is strictly a matter of the energy density (Joules/kg) of the local source. 

Now if you want to determine the terminal velocities of an M-E driven vehicle, then the M-E drive’s equivalent Isp and Total Impulse (mass*velocity) metrics comes in handy for calculating such figures because they take into account the magnitude (max power of both the power supply and M-E drive) and temporal limitations (how long they can both run) of the vehicle’s engines, local energy source AND the equivalent mass/energy harvested from the G/I field.  This is where John’s confusion seem to come into play per his below comments:

JohnFornaro

“The suggestion seems to be that the Carvin amp or whatever, is a laboratory expedient.  The proposed self contained energy supply would be some sort of super capacitor whose energy could be tapped for momentum conversion.  This capacitor would carry more energy than a nuclear reactor of the same energy output.  Is that correct?

Even so, current output for a 2kw system is on the order of micro-Newton.  It would still have to be scaled up to a 1kw system putting out milli-Newton, as in GOCE.”

G/I thruster has already addressed some aspects of this question, but the local Carvin or other local power converters and energy sources only supply the catalytic power required to initialize and maintain the possibly much larger directed momentum flux from the G/I field that then back reacts onto the vehicle.  This is where the heat pump or transistor analogy comes in handy for how these G/I field engines act like momentum amplifiers that use a very small control signal, (the local input power), to control the potentially much larger momentum flux from the cosmological G/I field. 

What currently limits the maximum thrust of these G/I thrusters is the limitations of our current G/I “transistors” and just like when the bipolar junction transistor (BJT)s first came out in 1948 at Bell Labs, their electrical gains (thrust) where very small, being on the order of 2-to-10, but they improved steadily over the last half century so that the electrical gains are now measured in the thousands for single element transistors and millions when allowed to gang multiple transistors, such as in the BJT Darlington Pairs.  You can see a similar performance improvement progression in the development of the turbine power plants where Frank Whittle’s first turbojet engine prototypes only produced pounds of thrust, but now through various iterative design improvements since the 1930s such as the use of  centrifugal  compressors, staged turbine blade discs, and dual or even triple axel designs, turbofan engines are now rated at up to 100,000 lb-f thrusts.  In a like manner, we will see a migration of the M-E based field drives going from micro-Newton thrust levels up to tens of thousands of Newton per engine and beyond dependent only on their ultimate thrust gains and the development efforts applied to them.

 
Star-Drive

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 #288 on: 04/22/2009 10:44 PM »
Thanks for your all's efforts to explain.  I'm still asking for a posting of Cullen's paper, so that I can review and understand the math.

About transistors.  They amplify a signal, true, but they depend on power coming from another circuit.  So, the "G/I field engines act like momentum amplifiers that use a very small control signal, (the local input power), to control the potentially much larger momentum flux from the cosmological G/I field."

I hesitate to ask this, but are you guys intending to create a "flux capacitor"  in order to capture the momentum from the G/I field?  Then all this "Carvin circuitry", for want of a better term, directs this captured and stored momentum for purposes of the demonstration satellite thrusters?

Fine, but now I have to ask the question that blazotron asked above:  How can you guys access and control the momentum flux and nobody else can?  I know, we're "free" to do so, but my efforts are stymied from lack of info, hence the repeated requests for Cullen's paper.

So:  What is it that you all are pushing against? And where is the energy source that the "Carvin circuitry" can amplify and convert into directed momentum?
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 #289 on: 04/22/2009 11:23 PM »
 
"I hesitate to ask this, but are you guys intending to create a "flux capacitor"  in order to capture the momentum from the G/I field?"

Not really.  We don't have a way to capture or store momentum in a capacitor.  Instead, what we do is what you can literally call a "sneaky trick" in that we use the momentum flux in fits and starts.  During each cycle, the mass will fluctuate first positive, then negative, then positive, then negative again.  Each time it's positive we push it in one direction and when it's negative we pull it in the opposite direction.  Lets take an example.

You have 2 grams of active ceramic mass, probably Barium Titanate or BaTiO3 and you fluctuate it 50% at 40 khz.  That means when it moves left and is positive, you are pushing 3 grams of mass, when it moves right you are pulling 1 gram of mass.  The net difference is 2 grams of mass and you do this twice each cycle, 40,000 times each second.

The power system only makes possible the fluctuation and the push-pull motion.  The real power into the system is the gravinertial flux that is transiently altering the mass of the ceramic.  That is the power the "GI transistor" is controlling, much as a sail controls the wind or a transistor controls a larger current flow.

Additionally, we believe that mass fluctuations can be in excess of 100% which opens a whole new can of worms.  When the fluctuation is at 100%, you are literally pulling no mass so there is no force required.   Once fluctuation goes over 100%, the mass is negative and will have negative inertia, essentially self accelerating in the direction of force upon it, rather than resisting acceleration like normal mass.  This is the area where we hope to see huge thrust efficiencies.  Jim is not working in this >100% mass fluctuation area, otherwise known as "wormhole territory" but Paul is, which explains why he was seemingly able to get such large thrusts with his experiment several years ago.  Jim's derivation does not precise this "wormhole term" which is why Jim refuses to work in wormhole territory for the time being.

If one uses the "impulse term" to extrapolate what thrust inside wormhole territory should be like, you can just extend this process above.  Lets say that you have 2 grams and fluctuate it 200%.  Now you're pushing 6 grams and pulling negative 2 grams which is the same as pushing another 2 for a net of 8 grams twice each cycle.  That would be the end of the story except that under these conditions, the "wormhole term" in the derivation suddenly comes to play and makes an additional contribution.  The derivation cannot be used to calculate this contribution since it does not precise the term.  This is why Jim won't work in wormhole territory because his theory can't yet predict what sort of thrust we should see.  On the other hand, we have others willing to jump in and experiment and even though they're experimenting without the benefit of a careful prediction, there's so much to be learned this seems worth the effort.

The chief trouble with working in wormhole territory is that if an item doesn't work, there's no way to know why that's so.  So we have these two approaches. . .

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #290 on: 04/22/2009 11:37 PM »
Star-Drive:  I know all that.  I'm just suggesting that calculating Isp using mass-equivalence of energy expended is not the fairest/most credible way to compare this drive with rockets and ion thrusters, since the actual fuel mass required is far larger than the mass-equivalent of the energy expended.

I have proposed an alternative method for calculating an equivalent "Isp" solely for comparison purposes.  You wouldn't actually use this number to calculate anything else; indeed, you need to know the delta-V in order to calculate it in the first place...

JohnFornaro:  Cullen's paper, IIRC, is cited by Shawyer, not Woodward.  The two thrusters are very different, and personally I don't think Shawyer's drive is going to work (although I am willing to be proved wrong).  Cullen's paper won't help you understand Mach-effect thrusters.

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 #291 on: 04/23/2009 12:32 PM »
10/4 on that correction about Sawyer and Woodward.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

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 #292 on: 04/23/2009 03:36 PM »
Does the paper: "MACH’S PRINCIPLE, MASS FUCTUATIONS, AND RAPID SPACETIME TRANSPORT"

by Woodward & Mahood

as published in STAIC 2000, contain all the math and apparatus description to repeat the experiment?
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 #293 on: 04/23/2009 04:10 PM »

I don't think there's any one paper that has everything one would need to repeat any one experiment.  If you want to do a replication of any sort, your first and best recourse is certainly to communicate with others who are involved in the work, starting with Jim Woodward.

Which experiment were you interested in, the rotator?  You won't find that in any papers though, you will find it in Jim's most recent PPT that went out last week to his mail list.  Maybe I can get permission to post that up here.  I'm sure folks would be amazed at the level of detail in it.

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 #294 on: 04/23/2009 06:32 PM »
Actually, I also have Mahood's 1999 thesis, presented to Woodward.  I'm not going to be setting up an experiment any time soon.  I would be happy with just the math proving the theory of this kind of propulsion.

One of my earlier posts asked if there was enough info out there to repeat one of Woodward's experiments; from your reply just now, the answer is actually no.  In order to verify Woodward's results, you have to ask him for his info, which sorta makes sense.  But I would have thought the info would be posted here in order to broaden the peer review base.

In other words, although we are free to repeat the experiments, we're either on our own, or beholden to a fellow who, if I'm reading between the lines correctly, may prefer holding his cards close to his chest.  Which is also understandable.

I know you've offered Woodward's mailing list to pre-qualified individuals, and that's potentially good, even as it is more of a private mailing.  I'm looking for a bit more public transparency, which is why I ask for materials on this forum.

Also, in the above list of individuals doing similar research, which of these are independently verifying Woodward's results?

Maybe I'll eventually want to build a Warp drive, but I gotta go mow the grass first.
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 #295 on: 04/23/2009 07:31 PM »
Look John, you're playing a semantics game and I'm not playing.

The info is all publicly available, it's just not in a single paper (especially one that is 10 years older than the rotator experiment.)  Jim is not playing his cards "close to the chest."  The situation is the precise opposite.  All the info anyone would want on how to do these experiments is easy to get.  Now if you don't read ANY of the papers, and you don't correspond with ANYONE doing the work, and you say you want public access, I have to think you're being disingenuous. 

I think it's fair at this point to ask what your skill set is.  I find it difficult to imagine someone who needs elementary explanations from a non technical person like myself, just to grasp the basics of standard power systems, is actually going to build anything.  I said all the info is available.  I didn't say the people doing the work were going to provide you with a bachelors in electrical engineering.  So what precisely is your skill set?

But in short, again, for the uncounted time: all of the information necessary to do these experiments is available to anyone who has an interest.  All you need to do is demonstrate that interest by reading the papers and communicating with those who know what they're doing.  Several of those who have done this work in the past did it based completely upon what they learned by reading Jim's papers and had no contact with Jim at all.  Personally I think that's a silly tack to take but skilled engineers and physicists can do that sort of thing and the rotator experiment is relatively cheap and easy to do since it does not require vacuum or a thrust balance.  It still requires someone who knows how to read an oscilloscope.

Can you read a scope, John?

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #296 on: 04/23/2009 09:50 PM »
How does Shawyer get v = group velocity in his "emdrive"? The "v" is the velocity of the charge, not the wave, and is << c.

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 #297 on: 04/24/2009 01:00 PM »
I'm not playing a semantic game at all.  The simple answer is that yes, I'm free to verify the thinking behind the MLT hypothesis, but I'm going to have to hunt it down myself, becasue it won't all be presented here on this forum.

So that's the way it is in this field of endeavor.  It's frustrating for me, a beginner in all this, but it seems to comport witht he idea that science proceeds "one funeral at a time."  But my arm's tired from all the waving.

Anyhow, I have read two of the papers, but by your account, I haven't read "ANY" of them.  OK.  And as to corresponding with "ANYONE" doing this work, does that mean that none of them are corresponding on this thread?  Mr. Woodward is not, it would seem.  Whatever the legal meaning of public is, I thought this was a public forum.  Any access to info published here is available to the public.  Which is why I ask.  I'm not an insider.

As to the skill set, did I mention I'm a beginner?  I can read a scope, and I can program in assembler and there's a million other things I can't do or am not good at.  As to building anything, I am not; I'm looking to understand the math.  Already, Shawyer's math seems to have problems; by mikegi, blazotron, and my own reading.  I'll review what I have, Woodward and Mahood's papers.
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 #298 on: 04/24/2009 03:49 PM »
Here's the latest doc on the rotator experiment.  I don't think SPE-SIF has made the paper available yet.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #299 on: 04/24/2009 05:52 PM »
Here's a copy of the data from 3/28 graphed in XL.  The error bars show the standard deviation of the various data sets.  Note the shift in the effect dominance point between ascending and descending rotation data sets or the low point on the graph, showing thermal contribution.  The graph clearly indicates there is a pair of anti-phase effects at the second harmonic: electrostriction which is clearly understood and in anti-phase to it (just as the math says it should be) is the proposed Mach Effect.  This data is 3 weeks old but it's the most recent to be graphed.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2009 03:32 AM by GI-Thruster »

Tags: