Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 689526 times)

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 #380 on: 05/28/2009 10:43 PM »
Good luck to you guys.  I hope I am wrong that this thing violates the laws of physics.  If you are right we will not only have great rocket motor, you will all get Nobel Prizes.

I like you philosophy that the proof is in building and testing.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #381 on: 05/29/2009 03:59 AM »
Danny:

Since Dr. Woodward's Mach-Effect derivation for these mass fluctuations is Lorentz Invariant, i.e. it is a 4D spacetime derivation that is true in all frames of reference per the requirements of Einstein's General Relativity Theory (GRT), it automatically observes all conservations laws including the conservation of energy and momentum.  Where people get confused on this stuff is drawing their thermodynamics systems box locally just around the M-E device in question, whereas it has to be drawn around the causally connected universe where the G/I field generators reside.  Per the latest cosmological data, that means a radius of 13.7 billion light years from the local frame.  In other words when a G/I driven spaceship accelerates, the rest of the universe slows down, or if you prefer, the rest of the universe gets just a little bit colder.

Thanks much for the encouraging words and data is what we are short on.  However, doing this kind of bleeding edge research work after hours is getting to be a bit of a chore.   Let’s hope we make some progress in the near future…
« Last Edit: 05/29/2009 04:00 AM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

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 #382 on: 05/29/2009 04:31 AM »
Danny:

Since Dr. Woodward's Mach-Effect derivation for these mass fluctuations is Lorentz Invariant, i.e. it is a 4D spacetime derivation that is true in all frames of reference per the requirements of Einstein's General Relativity Theory (GRT), it automatically observes all conservations laws including the conservation of energy and momentum.  Where people get confused on this stuff is drawing their thermodynamics systems box locally just around the M-E device in question, whereas it has to be drawn around the causally connected universe where the G/I field generators reside.  Per the latest cosmological data, that means a radius of 13.7 billion light years from the local frame.  In other words when a G/I driven spaceship accelerates, the rest of the universe slows down, or if you prefer, the rest of the universe gets just a little bit colder.

Thanks much for the encouraging words and data is what we are short on.  However, doing this kind of bleeding edge research work after hours is getting to be a bit of a chore.   Let’s hope we make some progress in the near future…


The law I am worried about is the conservation of linear momentum.  If this thruster changes the linear momentum of the vehicle it is attached to, them some other object in the universe must have a change of momentum in the opposite direction.  What is this something?  The whole universe "slowing down" or getting colder doesn't conserve linear momentum.  Momentum is a vector, not a scalar.  If the vehicle accelerates to the right the whole universe must accelerate to the left.  Getting colder is NOT an acceleration to the left.

Like I said I truly hope I am wrong or simply don't understand.  If this thing works I can tell my grand kids I had the honor to chat with the people that changed the universe before they were born.

Danny Deger
« Last Edit: 05/29/2009 04:40 AM by Danny Dot »
Danny Deger

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #383 on: 05/29/2009 04:36 AM »


The law I am worried about is the conservation of linear momentum.  If this thruster changes the linear momentum of the vehicle it is attached to, them some other object in the universe must have a change of momentum in the opposite direction.  What is this something?

Danny Deger
[/quote]

It's literally everything else but chiefly, the most distant matter or Far Off Active Matter (FOAM), as per Mach's Principle.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #384 on: 05/29/2009 11:52 AM »


The law I am worried about is the conservation of linear momentum.  If this thruster changes the linear momentum of the vehicle it is attached to, them some other object in the universe must have a change of momentum in the opposite direction.  What is this something?

Danny Deger

It's literally everything else but chiefly, the most distant matter or Far Off Active Matter (FOAM), as per Mach's Principle.
[/quote]

Danny & G/I Thruster:

Find attached a slide on this MLT linear momentum topic that I presented at the May 15, 2009 AIAA/Houston Technical Symposium here in Houston.  And yes, G/I thruster has the right of it.  When the MLT accelerates to the right, the rest of the causally conected universe accelerates to the left.  You won't notice it though because of the huge disparity in mass/energy between these two systems.
« Last Edit: 05/29/2009 12:02 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

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 #385 on: 05/29/2009 01:45 PM »

snip

Find attached a slide on this MLT linear momentum topic that I presented at the May 15, 2009 AIAA/Houston Technical Symposium here in Houston.  And yes, G/I thruster has the right of it.  When the MLT accelerates to the right, the rest of the causally conected universe accelerates to the left.  You won't notice it though because of the huge disparity in mass/energy between these two systems.

Thanks for the post.  How well known is the G/I field and its effect on moving the rest of the universe?  Is this a new and yet very little tested phenomenon?

I can say without analysis I don't think I will notice the universe move when one of these thrusters moves a spacecraft to Mars.

Danny Deger

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #386 on: 05/29/2009 03:01 PM »
Danny, the question you're asking can be restated as follows: "what evidence do we have that Mach's Principle is correct?" since it is entirely Mach's Principle that stipulates this relationship.  Jim Woodward's work was to bring Mach and Einstein together but the simplest way to answer your question is to look at Mach.

I'm not aware of any experiments to demonstrate Mach's Principle except those to Jim Woodward over the last decade or so, and since we are all in effect wondering about the theoretical basis for Jim's work, it doesn't serve to look at his lab work for an answer.  Instead, I would recommend approaching the theoretical question of the validity of Mach's Principle through a theoretical approach.  I think you'll find this text is truly excellent:

http://www.amazon.com/Machs-Principle-Newtons-Quantum-Einstein/dp/0817638237/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243608836&sr=8-1

However, if indeed you want to hold out for evidence that Mach's Principle is true, I would then say that literally ALL of Jim Woodward's experiments over the years demonstrate evidence for this Principle.  Jim's thrusters cannot work unless Mach was and is correct.

Hope that helps.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #387 on: 05/29/2009 03:14 PM »
inside wormhole territory
Sometimes I get my terms confused. When I see the word "wormhole" I always imagine a shortcut between 2 distant points in space, but instead of that the MLT creates a small fraction of twisted space-time (wormhole) just to get thrust out of it. That's a very witty move :)


it will produce very small thrusts.  So don't get your hopes up.
The question is how long could it sustain in a vacuum chamber. Any preparations for that kind of demonstration?

Sith, the term "wormhole territory" used in Jim Woodward's work (as well as that of guys like Paul March of course!) reflects the idea of mass fluctuating to the point that it becomes negative.  Once matter has a negative mass, even if only transiently; then it is what we call "exotic matter" and can be used to build warp drives and traversable wormholes.  This is why we call this transition from normal mass with normal inertia, to exotic matter with negative inertia by the name "wormhole boundary" and the place where exotic matter has negative inertia "wormhole territory."  This is not the same as claiming to build a wormhole.  I don't know anyone who has made such a claim, certainly not Jim Woodward.

What you're reading and confusing with this is that Jim is working outside wormhole territory, meaning he is fluctuating the mass less than 100% or dm<m and that Paul March is working within wormhole territory where the fluctuation is more than 100% or dm>m.  This is just the common use of the term "wormhole" when dealing with this work.

Jim always works in a vacuum chamber as this is the only way to isolate spurious thrust sources like ion wind and thermal effects when dealing with very small thrusts.  Paul is looking for much larger thrusts so it may turn out he doesn't need vacuum at all.  Lets hope so.

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #388 on: 05/29/2009 03:34 PM »
When the MLT accelerates to the right, the rest of the causally conected universe accelerates to the left.  You won't notice it though because of the huge disparity in mass/energy between these two systems.
What happens if there is more than one MLT ship and each one moves in a different direction? What happens then to the universe?
« Last Edit: 05/29/2009 03:37 PM by Sith »

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #389 on: 05/29/2009 04:24 PM »
Same thing that happens to the Earth when two cars drive in different directions.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #390 on: 05/29/2009 04:30 PM »

snip

Find attached a slide on this MLT linear momentum topic that I presented at the May 15, 2009 AIAA/Houston Technical Symposium here in Houston.  And yes, G/I thruster has the right of it.  When the MLT accelerates to the right, the rest of the causally conected universe accelerates to the left.  You won't notice it though because of the huge disparity in mass/energy between these two systems.

Thanks for the post.  How well known is the G/I field and its effect on moving the rest of the universe?  Is this a new and yet very little tested phenomenon?

I can say without analysis I don't think I will notice the universe move when one of these thrusters moves a spacecraft to Mars.

Danny Deger

Danny:

I’d have to say that the idea that the cosmological gravity field is the seat of inertia is not new, but very few professionals other than in the General Relativity Theory (GRT) community are familiar with it enough to be able to participate in it in a productive way.  So I guess I need to paint a quick history of where this all started for you.

The idea of the cosmological gravity field generated by the mostly distant mass/energy in the causally connected universe giving rise to inertial reaction forces was first posited by Ernst Mach in the late 1800s, being called later by Einstein as “Mach’s Principle.”  Albert Einstein then discussed the idea further with Mach during the time period between Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity paper and his 1915 General Relativity paper, and Einstein was quoted after 1915 as saying that “Mach’s Principle” was the best explanation for the property we call inertia. 

Not much was done with this gravity/inertia (gravinertial) field idea until the early 1950s where Dennis Sciama, (Steven Hawking’s grad advisor at Cambridge, UK), published a 1953 paper showing how Mach’s Principle could be shown to be the gravitational parallel to Michael Faraday’s electrical induction effect.  Sciama then demonstrated that the near instantaneous inertial reaction forces for all accelerating objects can be viewed as a GRT based  “inertial-induction effect” generated by the gravity based inertial radiation field created by the mostly distant cosmic mass-energy of the universe.  Then in 1975 Derek Raine showed that Sciama’s inertial-induction conjecture is correct in Einstein’s GRT for Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmologies, i.e., in a universe like our own.   

Dr. Woodward who has a PhD in the history of gravitational physics came along in the mid 1980s looking at all that had gone before in this inertial induction venue and started to play with the mathematical derivations surrounding Newton’s three laws of motion.  He found through this process that when the derivation for Newton’s three laws of motion were performed in GRT compliant 4D spacetime, i.e. in a Lorentz invariant way, he found that there were several transient mass terms in the second and third laws, (F=m*a and action=reaction), that indicated that when a body is accelerated and undergoes an internal energy change such as in a capacitor that is charging and discharging, that a transient mass term should be expressed in the mass of the capacitor.

Over the last fifteen years, Woodward, his graduate student Tom Mahood, and several others including myself have been trying to flesh out Woodward’s mass fluctuation conjecture with experimental data with mixed results.  It appears that there are many ways to screw up building these G/I ac devices since they are very phase sensitive to forces AND fields that getting it wrong is very easy and getting it right is very, very difficult.   

There is lots more to say, but that’s probably enough for now. 
« Last Edit: 05/29/2009 06:38 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #391 on: 05/29/2009 07:53 PM »
Quote
G/I ac devices
Alternating current (AC)? What is so special in it for a MLT? For example it could be DC powered. What would be the difference?

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #392 on: 05/29/2009 08:29 PM »
Quote
G/I ac devices
Alternating current (AC)? What is so special in it for a MLT? For example it could be DC powered. What would be the difference?

Sith:

ALL G/I based mass fluctuations are transient by their very nature since they rely on the time rate of change of the power going through the accelerated caps in question, which generates spacetime distrubances around the dielectric in question that propogate away from the G/I drive at lightspeed.  Also if you just kept increasing the applied voltage to a cap in a time varying dc signal, sooner or later the cap will burn out.  So to implement a semi-continuous output force G/I drive, one has to apply an alternating current (ac) excitation voltage to them with higher ac frequencies being better, in fact much better.  Direct currect (dc) won't work for long since the dP/dt term goes to zero after a short time period.  I'm appending again my MLT scaling slide for your reference.   
Star-Drive

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #393 on: 05/29/2009 08:51 PM »
Quote
Also if you just kept increasing the applied voltage to a cap in a time varying dc signal, sooner or later the cap will burn out
Even if the dc is pulsed?

How are the amps and the volts distributed in a full completed MLT prototype system? I mean for high voltage corresponds low current and on the contrary.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #394 on: 05/29/2009 09:21 PM »
Sith:

Except for your selected ground reference voltage there is little difference between ac and pulsed dc so sure, it could be made to work for pulsed dc if your signal generator was set up for that mode of operation.

"How are the amps and the volts distributed in a full completed MLT prototype system?  I mean for high voltage corresponds low current and on the contrary."

That is up to the designer.  If you look at the MLT scaling chart I sent out, you will note that the magnitude of the delta mass ratio generated in the cap dielectric is proportional to the cube of the cap voltage and the cube of the frequency.  So you can operate at low frequencies, but high voltages verses at high drive frequencies and low voltages and get similar results for a given cap dielectric.  That is what makes these MLTs so difficult to design because there are just so many variations that are possible with some being better than others...
Star-Drive

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #395 on: 06/02/2009 07:15 AM »
What velocities can a MLT obtain in an atmospheric flight and could it be used as an intercontinental hypersonic ballistic plain? This rises the next question - if it can travel in atmosphere pretty well, is there some special way to reduce air drag in order to use less fuel

P.S. As I understand it negative inertia equals negative resistance, do I use the term correct?

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #396 on: 06/02/2009 01:45 PM »
I think you're confusing the operation of a thruster with the operation of an aerodynamic body in atmosphere.  These are two different issues.  In theory, a thruster of sufficient thrust/weight ratio can drive a hypersonic craft, not limited so much by the thruster but by the aerodynamics of the craft.  The limiting factor would eventually be the velocity of the propellant but the effective velocity of M-E thrusters is so high, this could never be a limiting factor.

So, given for example a 1 N/W MLT or UFG, we could easily build a global ambulance that would be about the size of a regular ambulance but capable of hypersonic flight and global range.  All sorts of flying cars and other forms of transport are possible if you can build a 1 N/W M-E thruster.  How fast these craft can go is determined by their aerodynamics and heat shedding abilities and how high they can go is determined by their ability to withstand vacuum and space radiation.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #397 on: 06/02/2009 09:49 PM »
Guys:

If we have G/I based 1.0 N/W thrusters at our disposal and you have to go long distances greater than say 100 miles on the Earth or any other similar planetary body with an atmosphere, you don't fight the Earth's atmosphere, you go over it!  If your destination is less than 100 miles though just run subsonic at say 600 mph and get to your destination in under 10 minutes.   That's good enough for me... 
« Last Edit: 06/02/2009 09:50 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #398 on: 06/03/2009 12:53 PM »


Now that's cool because it takes less than 2/10 of the fuel to climb up to orbit. Ordinary it'll take the whole fuel to get there. And we all know that LEO is half way to anywhere :)


Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #399 on: 06/03/2009 03:50 PM »
Ok here's a conceptual design for a polywell powered space craft using both fusion heated thrust and Mach-Effect impulse powered by MaGrid power conversion.
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.

Tags: