Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 666507 times)

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #320 on: 05/14/2009 07:52 PM »
Sith:

The nuclear bomb based Project Orion propulsion approach had plenty power, but its Isp was "only" around 10,000 seconds.  The worst MLT on the other hand has an equivalent Isp measured in the tera-seconds and it works rapidly up from there as the delivered thrust increases. 

John F.:

You can contact me me thru the NSF "My-messages" e-mail pull down tab.
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #321 on: 05/14/2009 07:54 PM »
GI Thruster:

What is junk science?
Star-Drive

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #322 on: 05/14/2009 08:46 PM »
Star-Drive, the "Onion Drive" (not "Orion") is sci-fi UFO myth junk science.  It was shredded on one of Greg Meholic's distributions yesterday by half a dozen physicists including Jim.  Someone recast the garbage from years ago in new form and is pretending it's real science when it's not.
« Last Edit: 05/14/2009 08:48 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #323 on: 05/14/2009 09:00 PM »
And when I looked later the Onion Drive's home page
http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/oniondrive/onion.htm
on the botton of the site was written something about the Schauberger's "Repulsine" and the Searl levity disc. Both of the crafts - are they a deception? Somewhere I've read that the IGV has been tested by some Air Force guys back in the 1970s. Was it realy airborne?

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #324 on: 05/14/2009 09:30 PM »
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but group velocity is the velocity of a wavefront, or per Wiki, the modulation or envelope of a wave.  It is a velocity, but it is not a velocity of something, that is, it is not a velocity of mass.  It is also not the velocity of a signal carrying information, which is also something less than or equal to c.

Backing up to the Wiki article, the matter wave group velocity is also just a velocity, not a velocity of matter.  How does Shawyer get work done, when all he is using is a velocity on which to hang his theory?

The velocity affects the momentum felt at the end caps. The waveguide essentially squeezes the wave group, stretching it out, so that it simply take longer to complete it's interaction with the end cap at one end than the other. This changes the actual momentum imparted upon the cap. One end has a shorter wavegroup, the other has a longer wavegroup (though the frequency is the same). Thus the momentum difference.

One thing I am struggling with is the time causality of the recoil reaction of the engine.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #325 on: 05/14/2009 09:41 PM »
And when I looked later the Onion Drive's home page
http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/oniondrive/onion.htm
on the botton of the site was written something about the Schauberger's "Repulsine" and the Searl levity disc. Both of the crafts - are they a deception? Somewhere I've read that the IGV has been tested by some Air Force guys back in the 1970s. Was it realy airborne?

Scahauberger was made famous by Nick Cook's "Hunt for Zero Point" and Searl has been running a con for more years than anyone can count.  He's even been locked up for it in the past.  It's all garbage.

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #326 on: 05/14/2009 10:08 PM »
Ok, now let's get back to the real science.


The MLT accelerates constantly at 1 g. It nearly equals the 'sublight' engines of Enterprise. But what about rapid accelerations? I guess in future it can be upgraded with more sophisticated tech in order to make quick jumps without crush the crew. Like inertial dampers.

« Last Edit: 05/14/2009 10:08 PM by Sith »

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #327 on: 05/14/2009 11:57 PM »
Sith, given any particular amount of force generated by any particular MLT or UFG, when you divide that force by the mass of the spacecraft, you will get the acceleration.  1 gee acceleration is enough to cause something to float.  You need more force/mass to get it to climb out of the Earth's gravity well.

You're confusing Paul March's illustration of the "one gee solution" where he was showing what spacecraft can do if they can continuously accelerate at one Earth gee, with what we can currently do.  We're not generating anything like that amount of thrust.

Right now, all M-E thrusters have a low enough thrust that when you divide them by their weight, they cannot float.  And that doesn't include the rest of a spacecraft.  So, you're a little ahead of us all here but I do appreciate your enthusiasm.  :-)

F=MA   ::waves hand::

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #328 on: 05/15/2009 03:05 AM »
Sith:

The nuclear bomb based Project Orion propulsion approach had plenty power, but its Isp was "only" around 10,000 seconds.  The worst MLT on the other hand has an equivalent Isp measured in the tera-seconds and it works rapidly up from there as the delivered thrust increases. 


THey said "onion" not "orion"
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 Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #329 on: 05/15/2009 04:07 AM »
I have been studying Mahood's thesis on and off over the last several weeks.  He admits that the ORNL refutation of his experimental work has some validity, but insists that further experimentation will validate his results.  Could someone post a more recent PDF of Mahood and Woodward's math and experimental work?

Mahood's math is gnarly for me, but I'm working thru the equations in his thesis appendix one by one, in case anybody is wondering, or even cares.

However, thrust efficiency is a major stumbling block, if the current (1999) readings are taken as accurate.  If my tentative suggestion of newtons per watt as a unit of measure is acceptable, the power supply for such a thruster would be distressingly large for the amount of thrust generated.

I haven't read that paper so I can't really comment. However the thrust efficiency is really a function of how cleanly you can shove the masses around. If you had a Bose-Einstein Condensate or some kind of singularity, or a bunch of Higgs bosons, then it might be much easier. But we're doing with squishy ordinary matter through conventional electrical systems.

Quote
In addition, he is ignoring local gravitational effects, such as the planet Earth, in favor of distant gravitational effects, which are several orders of magnitude smaller. I don't understand the derivation of his justification for this.

This may help (somewhat):
http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/mach.pr.html

Mach treats inertia as a result of the overall G-field created by all mass in the universe. I don't know about the tensor treatment he uses, but basically I would say it equates to gravitational potential. What we see as gravitational potential here on Earth is merely one-sided inertia. I need 5kJ to raise object x by 5m. With inertia, it equates to a relative velocity since in a non-Euclidean universe all vectors and distances sum to zero. Somebody hit me if I'm off track here.

Quote
Further, the thesis offers no insight as to what I understand to be the tapping of some other energy source to provide momentum.  This has to do mass fluctuations in excess of 100%, so there seems to be more recent math which I would appreciate reviewing.

The resultant energy is the relative change in velocity of the rest of the Universe. Just like a planet slows marginally from a gravity slingshot of a probe.

Quote
Finally,  the mass fluctuations of the Ti ion appear to take place at non-relativistic speeds.  What is the math behind this assertion?

There is no real mass fluctuation. The G-field simply hasn't reacted to the fact that the object has moved. Pointing to an empty array, to use a programming analogy. So the forces pointing back to where the object was are now acting on empty space. Kind of like steering for the last shot, in naval terms.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #330 on: 05/15/2009 04:08 AM »
What about the Onion Drive? I saw it's theory in the aiaa presentation 2008.

http://www.aiaa-la.org/flyers/Adv%20Space%20Propulsion%20for%20Interstellar%20Travel%20-%20GMeholic%20042408.pdf

Slide 34/55


Is it equal to the MLT thruster?

Like Camelot, it is a silly place. Let us not go there.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #331 on: 05/15/2009 06:41 AM »
About the MLT drive - for example it works several days in space, at 1g, without stopping, but suddenly it stops. Would the craft "drop out of warp" or the speed will remain the same to the point it stoped?

Offline Pittsburgh

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #332 on: 05/15/2009 06:59 AM »
About the MLT drive - for example it works several days in space, at 1g, without stopping, but suddenly it stops. Would the craft "drop out of warp" or the speed will remain the same to the point it stoped?

Go back a few posts and take a look at F=ma.

If the drive stops working, no more acceleration.  By definition, that means that it will continue on at the same speed.

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #333 on: 05/15/2009 03:35 PM »
And 'red matter'???

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #334 on: 05/15/2009 09:31 PM »
What about the Onion Drive? I saw it's theory in the aiaa presentation 2008.

http://www.aiaa-la.org/flyers/Adv%20Space%20Propulsion%20for%20Interstellar%20Travel%20-%20GMeholic%20042408.pdf

Slide 34/55


Is it equal to the MLT thruster?

Folks:

Sorry about seeing "Orion" when you were all talking about the "Onion" drive.  It looks like I need to get my reading glasses changed again. :(

Next comment is on the issue on if the MLT could be used to implement a warp drive instead of "just" a G/I based impulse drive only capabile of sublight speeds.  The answer to this question is sitting in the Mach-Effect (M-E) equation's wormhole term when it is driven by the impulse term into its always negative mass mode as experimentally demonstrated in Woodward's 2002 IIT paper, with the results appended below. 

Now it has been shown by several researchers like Dr. Richard Obousy (Baylor U.) and Dr. Harold White (Rice U.) that all one needs to create a Alcubierre warp bubble around the starship in a GRT/string theory based universe is a negative mass energy differential, (An average matter density less than the rest mass of the dielectric in question.), instead of a less than zero gravinertial mass concentration previously thought to be required, but assembled in the appropriate geometric configuration like a torus .  This greater than zero, but less than the rest mass of the M-E excited dielectric state has already been demonstrated by Woodward in a PZT stack and increasing this into a toroidal configuration is almost trivial.  However maintaining a toroidal dielectric ring at a particular lower delta mass set point will still be a bit of a control engineering challenge.

A simple experiment to verify this conjecture is to shoot a laser down a path that is offset from the center bore of an MLT tours and note whether the laser beam is deflected as it passes through the asymmetric spacetime distortions created by the MLT when it’s driven into a continuous reduced mass state like those found in Woodard’s 2002 experimental results.  If it does, we can then start planning on how we can implement a warp drive to any-where and/or any-when in this universe or any of the other universes in the string theory's multi-verse.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2009 09:32 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline cgrunska

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Austin Tx
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #335 on: 05/15/2009 10:04 PM »
and how much would this experiment cost?

also, this thread is making my head hurt

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #336 on: 05/15/2009 10:19 PM »
If we had to come up from scratch, probably around ~$10k or for parts.  The tricky thing in this experiment is designing the control loop for maintaining the delta mass reduction in the PZT ring as this high-k dielectric heats up and expands.  We would also have to develop a cooling loop design to keep it from going over its Curie temperature of ~350C. 

BTW, I just talked with Dr. White and he reminded me that what he had in mind for this experiment was shooting the laser down the bore scope of the PZT ring that forms a leg of a Michelson/Morley (M&M) interferometer.  What his prediction indicate is that the phase of the laser light passing through the M-E induced spacetime distortion in the PZT ring would change in reference to the laser beam passing through the flat spacetime outside the PZT ring in the same way as the moving aether was suppose to affect the light beam in the M&M tests.   

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

BTW, sorry about your head hurting, but if this stuff was easy, it would have been accomplished already. :)
« Last Edit: 05/15/2009 10:21 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #337 on: 05/15/2009 10:27 PM »
You don't need an interferometer and you don't have to cool the PZT.  There's no reason to try to run in stasis unless you want to measure the distortion as opposed to simply confirm it.  The simplified version, confirmation alone;  any national lab could do this experiment in a single day with items on hand.

The real question is, even given a space-time disturbance, would a laser beam emerge in such a way as to clearly show the disturbance?  I'm not sure that's a given--just as the ZPF folks say about M-M.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2009 10:34 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline cgrunska

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Austin Tx
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #338 on: 05/15/2009 10:31 PM »
So for 10k, we might be able to determine if M-E travel works?

that's an easy decision to make for funding...
How come it hasn't received funding as of yet to perform?

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #339 on: 05/15/2009 10:49 PM »
What his prediction indicate is that the phase of the laser light passing through the M-E induced spacetime distortion in the PZT ring would change in reference to the laser beam passing through the flat spacetime outside the PZT ring in the same way as the moving aether was suppose to affect the light beam in the M&M tests.   

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
The aether is known today in the quantum mechanics as quantum foam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

And what if the same M&M experiment is conducted now, but as a rotational version (using M-E distortions) instead of the old linear one? Would then be any aether detected? Is that his idea?

-=-=-=-=-=


Too much energy required...


Tags: