Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 665181 times)

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #340 on: 05/16/2009 03:15 PM »
"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?"

No.  He's saying that given MLT's and UFG's distort space-time when they create gravinertial flux, one ought to be able to observe this with a laser.  It's got very little to do with M-M except that the two experiments have some protocols in common.

If one were to try to run in stasis over an extended period of time then running in vacuum would be advisable.  That would escalate the costs some.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #341 on: 05/17/2009 12:45 AM »
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...



Subsequent papers have reduced that requirement, but it's still tremendous. The biggest problem is causal disconnect with the surroundings. - In other words, the metric distortion must travel faster than the speed of light. This can be overcome with a "warp corridor" set up at sublight speeds but then there are also causality problems that way.

If the Mach theory is correct, then we don't have to worry about causal disconnect as the metric bubble distortion propagates faster than light anyway (or forwards and backwards in time which amounts to the same thing).
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 #342 on: 05/17/2009 12:51 AM »
I should mention that I proposed this same thing three years ago (which Sonny was copied to) but there was no agreement whether the laser wouldn't dislocate in one direction upon entering the distortion, and then relocate upon exiting the distortion.  This is the same problem we have with the M-M experiment as described by ZPF folks.

I don't see it leading to an unassailable conclusion.

In any case, aiming the beam down the center of the distortion is the wrong way to go.  You need to go off normal to get evidence of a distortion.

And no.  According to Dr. Woodward's theory, and all GR theorists; all gravitic consequences propagate at c.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #343 on: 05/17/2009 01:34 AM »
Quote
And no.  According to Dr. Woodward's theory, and all GR theorists; all gravitic consequences propagate at c.

Well then, no warp drive. Unless the metric distortion propagates faster than c, it will be a sub-light warp drive only...
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 #344 on: 05/17/2009 02:50 AM »
You're confusing the divergent facts here.  Matter cannot move past c through space-time.  Space-time can move at any arbitrarily high speed through space-time.  That's what "warp" is all about!   :-)  I guess I shouldn't use the term "gravitic consequences."  That is misleading and of course, you are correct.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2009 02:09 PM by GI-Thruster »

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 #345 on: 05/17/2009 02:32 PM »
All we have to do is warp space-time....

Arrrgh.

All we have to do is launch a chemical rocket to the Moon.  Sorry, had to vent.
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 #346 on: 05/18/2009 10:36 PM »
Sorry I missed some of your questions, John.  I hope Paul was able to answer your more technical ones.  As to this:

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

The forces in MLT's and UFG's to date do not generate relativistic speeds in the Titanium ions.  If you look at the math you'll see this.  But more importantly, the fluctuation doesn't occur in the Ti ion.  It occurs in the squishy bonds between the Ti ion and its lattice.  This is why we finally realized after 2 years study on the MLT that it won't perform as hoped (though it does perform) because we're not accelerating the entire lattice with an MLT.  We need "bulk acceleration" which is why Jim moved from MLT research, to the rotator research and will be headed back to UFG research in the Fall.  The UFG provides bulk acceleration and the past UFG results were much better than the MLT research results from Fullerton.  Paul March's MLT experiments do need to be considered separately since he was working inside wormhole territory.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 864
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #347 on: 05/19/2009 04:16 AM »
GI-Thruster:

"But more importantly, the fluctuation doesn't occur in the Ti ion.  It occurs in the squishy bonds between the Ti ion and its lattice.  This is why we finally realized after 2 years study on the MLT that it won't perform as hoped (though it does perform) because we're not accelerating the entire lattice with an MLT."

Come again?  The NET vxB forces do bulk accelerate the cap rings in question because the vxB force accelerate both the positive and negative ions in the dielectric in the same direction.  However, their acceleration levels at the power levels and frequency used by Woodward yields bulk accelerations levels on the order of less than 1.0 gee, whereas it appears what's needed for robust thrust outputs is bulk accelerations on the order of hundreds if not thousands of gees.  Going to higher power levels and/or higher frequencies can help generate those bulk acceleration levels in the MLTs.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2009 04:17 AM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #348 on: 05/19/2009 03:10 PM »
Star-Drive, agreed.  I was speaking only of research outside wormhole territory.  Obviously, it's easier to get the necessary accelerations working at higher frequency.  I'm all for that.  :-)  I'm just saying, given Jim's commitment to avoid wormhole territory, the UFG makes more sense as it's more prone to create these accelerations in the kHz range.  (Though personally, I'd sure like to see Jim run the 200 kHz MLT's at 200 kHz.  Who knows what we might learn?)

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 #349 on: 05/20/2009 05:19 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.

Well I ran out of time to scan and post these before I left, but now that I am back, here they are.  Thanks to John Fornaro for the PDF version of the images I supplied.

[This post has been edited to replace the images with the new PDF, and the following two posts (which contained additional pages of images) have been deleted as everything is now contained in this post.]
« Last Edit: 05/20/2009 05:38 PM by blazotron »

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #350 on: 05/20/2009 02:34 PM »
« Last Edit: 05/20/2009 02:37 PM by mikegi »

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 #351 on: 05/20/2009 04:22 PM »
Interesting to see the variations in the two versions of Shawyer's theory.  The refutation paper doesn't use much math, but I think it is correct graphically.  It basically confirms what we know to be true:  a truncated conical wastebasket, closed at each end, filled with bouncing cannonballs will not move anywhere, unless the cannonballs somehow reduce their mass consistently in one direction.

On the other hand, I don't care for the dismissive language of the refutation.  I like the Wiki idea of writing in neutral.

Having gone thru Cullen's paper quickly, on page 102, is an equation which closely resembles the derivation that Shawyer mentions in his theory paper, but it is not exactly replicated in Shawyer's work.  I haven't yet figured out what steps in this equation are the ones that Shawyer has omitted, but there is another thing.  Cullen is measuring microwave power;  it is still not at all clear how Shawyer relates group velocity of a wave front with the velocity of an accelerating mass in the F-ma equation.

Edited 05-22-09:  correct pagination of citations not important.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2009 01:49 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #352 on: 05/20/2009 04:32 PM »
Anything new in the Tachyon theory? Any recent advancement?


More on Shawyer:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf
This is from 2006. It's old!

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #353 on: 05/20/2009 05:32 PM »
For a microwave cavity, the wavelength in free space over the group wavelength is equal to the group velocity over the free space velocity (Vg/C). Plug that into Cullen's eq 15 and you get Shawyer's force equation.

About the shawyerfraud.pdf being "old", if you try to say that 2+2=6 and I rebut that 2+2=4, I'm using an explanation that's thousands of years old. Is it invalid???

Regardless, Newton will win in the end. This contraption will fail to produce any results.

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 #354 on: 05/20/2009 05:48 PM »
My impression upon studying the paper, having read the previous rebuttal and noted how Shawyer had changed his "theory paper," is that he dug for some more complicated explanation that is harder to decipher where he went wrong.  When it became obvious that his old explanation of pressures on differing end plate areas was causing a new force was completely garbage, he obfuscated the issue with waveguides, relativity, and a reference to a paper that is damned near impossible to get.  I am not an expert in the field, but I feel pretty sure that the issue is still there, just hidden better now, and that, as mikegi says, Newton will eventually win.  I believe he has taken an equation out of context in his derivation.  Hopefully I will have time to pin it down and get back in the near future with more.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #355 on: 05/20/2009 05:56 PM »
I've said about all I want to with regards Shawyer but I should mention again that Dr. Harold White at JSC has an alternate explanation of why the Shawyer thruster ought to produce thrust.  It's based upon ZPF theory of which I am no proponent but I think it's just being fair to say that if the thruster did produce thrust, this would in no way verify Shawyer's maths.  He'd still be just as wrong.

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 #356 on: 05/20/2009 07:51 PM »
Having these slightly different versions of papers is confusing to me.  I don't quite have the math skills to properly asses all the jumps in Shawyer's equations.  Plus, which one do you believe?

Arrgh.

The site:
http://www.rexresearch.com/shawyer/shawyer.htm
has a bit more info on Shawyer, including a reference to the fraud paper mentioned above:

Shawyer's response:
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 #357 on: 05/20/2009 08:45 PM »
Arrgg.  Hit the wrong button.

Shawyer's response:

"The momentum exchange is between the electromagnetic wave and the engine, which is attached to the spacecraft. As the engine accelerates, momentum is lost by the electromagnetic wave and gained by the spacecraft, thus satisfying the conservation of momentum. In this process, energy is lost within the resonator, thus satisfying the conservation of energy.

"The emdrive concept is clearly difficult to comprehend without a rigorous study of the theory paper, which is available via emdrive.com or the New Scientist website. This paper, which has been subjected to a long and detailed review process by industry and government experts, derives two equations: the static thrust equation and the dynamic thrust equation.

"The law of the conservation of momentum is the basis of the static thrust equation, the law of the conservation of energy is the basis of the dynamic thrust equation. Provided these two fundamental laws of physics are satisfied, there is no reason why the forces inside the resonator should sum to zero.

"The equations used to calculate the guide wavelengths in the static thrust equation are very non-linear. This is exploited in the design of the resonator to maximise the ratio of end plate forces, while minimising the axial component of the side wall force. This results in a net force that produces motion in accordance with Newton’s laws."

...somehow doesn't seem convicing.

Then, someone named Penny Gruber has a fairly recent (2008) comment:

"Penny Gruber ( 20:23, 29 September 2008 (PDT) --  AFAIK COM has to apply in any inertial frame of reference. Assuming that the microwave cavity is well sealed as it must be for the high Q's Shawyer's system needs, then no microwaves escape. The magnetron, the waveguide to the cavity, the cavity and all the waves that bounce around inside of it are intrinsically in the same frame of reference, with no ejected mass or energy other than heating from the dielectric and conduction losses of the cavity materials. The thruster ejects nothing and so by COM cannot experience any accelerating force in an external FOR."

Then there's  a bunch of G.B. patents listed.  I don't think a patent really "proves" any science.  It just proves that you were the first person to describe a device.  Whether it works or not is up to the patentee to prove.

The Wiki discussion under the "EmDrive" heading nominates the article for deletion in 2006, but the discussion gained no consensus.  BTW, for Wiki to think that "truth" is determined by consensus is incorrect, but that's really a tirade for another thread.

The Wiki discussion, however, makes a number of arguments from authority, paricularly the "New Scientist" magazine.  One of the objectors raises the issue where I lost Shawyer:  he interchanges the v of a particle with the vg of a group velocity.  One of the editors compares Shawyer's device with a Mexican jumping bean!  One of the editors offers this site:

http://www.rocketeers.co.uk/?q=node/330

where Shawyer makes a demonstration.  The "New Scientist" article apparently refers to a demonstration of the device, but I haven't seen the video.  There's a reference to the biefield Brown effect, which I know nothing about, but which the editor thinks it has to do with the EmDrive.  Apparently there's some research being done at Northwestern Polytechnical University by a fella named Yang Juan.  The last editor to address the subject was in September 2008, and the first was in October of 2006.

The Wiki article is noted as a "Class-C article of low importance."

If I tagged it correctly, this is a video of the EmDrive:



Whew.  That was exciting.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #359 on: 05/20/2009 09:43 PM »
". . .There's a reference to the biefield Brown effect, which I know nothing about. . ."

It's a bad joke.  An inefficient ion thruster that does not work as reported.  Easiest way to tell is put it in a box.  The ions accelerated by the potential difference in the design can't get out of the box and the thruster doesn't work at all.  Was shown not to work many years ago.  You can ignore it as junk science.

Tags: