Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 664753 times)

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
  • Liked: 357
  • Likes Given: 692
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #40 on: 07/02/2008 04:50 AM »
Sandrot & Crew:
... that several possible solutions to the Propellantless Propulsion question might be available if we are willing to work with it.
Emphasis added. Possible. No one is saying that we shouldn't research far out ideas. However, it is also possible that none of them will pan out. The field is littered with hucksters and kooks, but not much in the way of real results. This is a long way from your earlier claim that we just need 25-50 years of hard work.

Sure, warp drives would be great, but reality has a tendency not to give a crud what you wish for.

Completely disregarding the physics (and I freely admit I don't have the education to evaluate many of the proposed mechanisms), IMO the Fermi Paradox is a strong indication that star travel is REALLY hard. Of course, there are other possible explanations.

Offline mboeller

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #41 on: 07/02/2008 02:31 PM »
nice overview about most current good ideas for propellantless field propulsion:

http://www.earthtech.org/publications/Robertson-Murad-Davis_ECM_49_3.pdf

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
  • Motown
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #42 on: 07/02/2008 06:45 PM »
One of the reasons this exotic physics effects are always so small, and so negligible in providing us large thrust, is that if they were bigger they would have been noticed before, questioning currently widely accepted models.

This makes me think that it's unlikely we will see a real breakthrough.
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
  • Motown
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #43 on: 07/02/2008 06:48 PM »
[...] IMO the Fermi Paradox is a strong indication that star travel is REALLY hard. Of course, there are other possible explanations.

One possible explanation is that actually aliens are all over, they don't use radio signals to communicate and they abide to Prime Directive.

This explanation fails Occam's Razor, but that's another story.
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline cpcjr

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #44 on: 07/02/2008 07:26 PM »
[...] IMO the Fermi Paradox is a strong indication that star travel is REALLY hard. Of course, there are other possible explanations.

One possible explanation is that actually aliens are all over, they don't use radio signals to communicate and they abide to Prime Directive.

This explanation fails Occam's Razor, but that's another story.

The simplest explanation and thus the one that fits Occam's Razor the best is that ET's do not exist. This is supported by our observation of other star systems that tend to show large planets extreamly  close to their stars.

Online nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1865
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #45 on: 07/02/2008 07:32 PM »
The main reason we see large planets near other stars is that currently that is all we can detect.

Offline cpcjr

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #46 on: 07/03/2008 12:19 AM »
The main reason we see large planets near other stars is that currently that is all we can detect.

I am aware of that but it does change the fact that this what what we have actualy observed. These large planets are in orbits that preclude the possibility of smaller ones in the habitable zone.

I did not say this fact proves ET does not exist but only that it supports the view that they don't. ti

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #47 on: 07/03/2008 01:53 AM »
The main reason we see large planets near other stars is that currently that is all we can detect.

I am aware of that but it does change the fact that this what what we have actualy observed. These large planets are in orbits that preclude the possibility of smaller ones in the habitable zone.

I did not say this fact proves ET does not exist but only that it supports the view that they don't. ti

Hot jupiters only appear in about 5% of all stars surveyed. There are plenty of giant planets in habitable zones that could host multiple terrestrial-sized moons. Take HD 82493 b for example:

http://www.extrasolar.net/planettour.asp?PlanetID=131

Eccentric, but within the habitable zone, which according to a lot of researchers is all you need. So long as the average temperature is acceptable, the planet is likely habitable.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
  • Motown
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #48 on: 07/03/2008 02:26 AM »
[...]
Eccentric, but within the habitable zone, which according to a lot of researchers is all you need. So long as the average temperature is acceptable, the planet is likely habitable.

As long as these giant planets in habitable zones don't sport a nasty radiation environment as our own Jupiter, you might be right.

Guys, we're OT.
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #49 on: 07/03/2008 04:13 AM »
[...]
Eccentric, but within the habitable zone, which according to a lot of researchers is all you need. So long as the average temperature is acceptable, the planet is likely habitable.

As long as these giant planets in habitable zones don't sport a nasty radiation environment as our own Jupiter, you might be right.

Guys, we're OT.

Agreed. Extrasolar planets needs its own thread. I don't think that interstellar travel is all that difficult; a metallic solar sail launched from 0.1 AU would reach 0.01c.

I think one of the promising areas of tech for the 21st century is in materials science and lasers. A laser beam's energy can be bounced back and forth many times to get more thrust per watt of beam power, for example. Metamaterials are enabling previously "impossible" areas like negative refractive indexes, which could open areas of monumental impact on beamed propulsion.

While I would love to see a propellantless propulsion system that could thrust at even milli-G levels, the sad truth is that most of them produce levels of thrust that are almost indistinguishable from experimental noise. Propellantless propulsion is going to demand advances from both physics, to explain what the heck is going on, and materials sciences, so that we can build the structure to the required tolerances, whatever they may be.

One field I am also hoping to see more of is from Heim theory and superconductors. If correct, then this could be a real flying-saucer-zip-off-into-space drive. At the current time we can (although it is highly disputed) make an artificial gravity gradient with rotating superconductors, as mentioned in the PDF reference. I find that highly encouraging.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2008 04:17 AM by Lampyridae »
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline mboeller

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #50 on: 07/03/2008 10:27 AM »

That's only becuse you've cut the search for a solution off at the pass before even trying.  For instance, the latest Excel spreadsheet tool we've developed for Woodward's MLT over the last seven months, based primarily on electrical and mechancial engneering issues, has over 100 controlling variables that have to be in "just so" relation to each other to get a predictied thrust of any appreciable value.  And by appreicable value I mean in the hundreds to thousands of Newtons instead of micro-Newtons where most of the possible solutions end up.  We hope to have an experimental verification of these latest MLT predictions later on this year, but the main point here is that with so many controlling variables, getting one of these PFP devices to run correctly and efficiently is like trying to balance a broom on your finger tip, in the dark.  It isn't easy, but it's NOT impossible!


So the work on the MLT's didn't cease last year. I had not seen one paper or presentation (STAIF) about MLTs in the last year so I thought the development effort died off during the last year. Thankfully thats not the case.

Quote
BTW, this thread is also suppose to be about space applications of PFP drives if anyone was so bold as to actually build one.  Did any of you download and read the MLT application paper by March on his Warpstar concept Lunar vehicle?  Now that puppy would be paradigm changing, (From the Earth to the Moon and back again in less than 12 hours and that's loafing.), and it's just the first step once its basic 22,500 Newton Mach-Lorentz Thruster module is in the bag...

Sure. I have read the AIAA-houston pdf about the lunar shuttle. Link:  http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/alt.php  It's the first paper "AIAA Jan07 Horizons" on the page. By the way the other papers are not bad either. ;)

Offline cpcjr

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #51 on: 07/03/2008 02:57 PM »
The main reason we see large planets near other stars is that currently that is all we can detect.

I am aware of that but it does change the fact that this what what we have actualy observed. These large planets are in orbits that preclude the possibility of smaller ones in the habitable zone.

I did not say this fact proves ET does not exist but only that it supports the view that they don't. ti

Hot jupiters only appear in about 5% of all stars surveyed. There are plenty of giant planets in habitable zones that could host multiple terrestrial-sized moons. Take HD 82493 b for example:

http://www.extrasolar.net/planettour.asp?PlanetID=131

I was referring to more than just hot Jupiters. My point was that most of the planets that have been detected  are large and in orbits that would eliminate any Earth size planets in the habitable zone.

Quote
Eccentric, but within the habitable zone, which according to a lot of researchers is all you need. So long as the average temperature is acceptable, the planet is likely habitable.

No such moon is known to exists and the radiation environment around a gas giant would probably render it uninhabitable. Not only that but the tidal environment could also be a problem.

To try to move things back on to topic. The original comment was that lack of ET contact could mean that interstellar travel is extremely difficult. My point was since current observation are most consistent with ETs  not exiting to be contacted, that  lack of ET contact means nothing for the feasibility interstellar travel, field drives, warp drives or any other form of dream propulsion system.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2008 05:53 PM by cpcjr »

Offline synchrotron

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #52 on: 07/04/2008 02:14 PM »
mboeller:

The MLT R&D is very much alive, but this work is currently in the oven, so I see no point in publishing papers that cost ~$1,500 a pop for the author unless there is something major to document for the community.  We are also pursuing a more basic experimental series that we hope will demonstrate conclusively the existence of Woodward’s conjectured mass fluctuations using rotary induced centripetal acceleration as the bulk acceleration variable, along with charging and discharging a set of ceramic capacitors at 40 kHz.  Initial results for this test series appear to be positive, but we are currently characterizing and quantifying the error sources in the experiment to make sure we just aren’t looking at garbage.

Charging and discharging of ceramic capacitors at 40 kHz has what to do with validating mass fluctuations?  What does 40 kHz have to do with anything?  Why specify ceramic?  Is this just smoke and mirrors like it appears?  What measurand are you quantifying?  What measurement approach are you using?  How do you establish statistical significance of your measurements?

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #53 on: 07/06/2008 01:19 PM »
@Star-Drive,

What I don't understand exactly is this notion of a gravito-electric wave. It seems to be present in a lot of other theories; what exactly is the basis for this? Their similarity as fields?

The other thing I'd like to know is what would need to be known for a workable MLT. Is it a matter of materials science, such as high-K dielectrics, or more getting that sweet speet of 100s of variables? In short, how possible is it that an MLT if possible, would be able to generate ~1G of thrust?
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #54 on: 07/06/2008 10:01 PM »

OK, now you asked about what gravitoelectric waves were and as best I can determine, and I’m not the expert to consult here, gravitoelectric waves are spacetime compression waves in the G/I field and are the primary momentum carriers for inertial forces.  However you must remember that these gravinertial compression waves use radiation reaction effects to convey their momentum from the particle to the field and back and therefore their transit times from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe is nearly instantaneous.

This is a violation of the general relativity model which is well supported at the macroscopic (non-quantum) scale in the known universe. Plus, in a number of theories that combine gravity and EM (for example,  the usual Maxwell's equations in a general relavity spacetime and the original 5 dimension Kaluza Klein models), photons are a special case of gravitoelectric waves and of course propagate at the speed of light.

Edit: Let me correct myself here. Photons, because they are massless don't have a compression wave component. But I think my take still works since the compression wave component is just part of a greater wave structure. And a significant part of that is known to travel exact at the speed of light.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2008 10:21 PM by khallow »
Karl Hallowell

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #55 on: 07/07/2008 12:46 AM »
Thanks, Star-Drive. This is very interesting stuff... I must admit that I am guilty of just skimming over equations instead of trying to understand them (I particularly detest matrices), but these are with a good attempt to cogitate (NO!! my brain screams in protest.) I had read about the radiation-inertial theory before, but I'd only seen it tested without a capacitor, i.e. using instantaneous acceleration only. The results were quite marginal.

This is a question created in deepest ignorance... is it absolutely necessary to have a capacitor? As I understand it, what is most important is energy density in the "reaction mass." Would making population inversions also result in a transient mass fluctuation? Would it be of sufficient density to be useful?

"However, as a certain LM/Fort Worth scientist is fond of saying; “Follow the data, theory be dammed!”"

A good philosophy if ever I heard one.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2008 12:52 AM by Lampyridae »
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 #56 on: 07/10/2008 03:58 AM »
So, the mass fluctuation is a result of the ion accelerations in the capacitor, right?

So, a particle is accelerated in the +X direction pretty fast, gaining mass. Meantime, it is accelerated in the +y direction for impulse. When +x acceleration starts to decrease, -y reverses.

Y
|
|                                 
|                          3
|           2                        4
|_1_________________________5  X

So there's 2 B field pulses for every 1 discharge. Or is it 1:1? I saw 2omega and 1omega being used that way in the theory part.

SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #57 on: 07/11/2008 09:05 AM »
khallow:

I'll let you argue with the folks like John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, (well that might be a tad hard since both gentlemen are dead), but have at with John Cramer (Washington State U) about his Transactional QM thesis over whether energy can be transferred at effectively superluminal speeds or not, but either inertia is a Machian effect which requires at a minimum local (sub-luminal) energy transfers between the accelerated mass and the preexisting gravinertial field and/or it’s a "spooky action at a distance" momentum transfer between the locally accelerated mass and all the rest of the mass in the universe via wormhole like momentum transfers.  If you think QM’s “local” quantum vacuum fluctuation approach is a better model for these types of inertial interactions OK, a case can be made for that view as well, though Woodward regularly shoots down that case in his papers.  Oh yes, and some other folks think that the QVF is driven by background instantaneous QM entanglements between mass elements, so then we are right back conflicting with your no FTL transactions edict, so let me direct you to another one of Woodward's tutorials on this tpoic: http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm

Woodward is of the opinion that this argument will not be settled until there is a viable quantum gravity theory brought forth, experimentally verified, and accepted by the physics community, but until then we have to make do with the overlapping and conflicting views of GRT, QM and the conservation laws as our only guides if we want to make any progress in this field.  However, as a certain LM/Fort Worth scientist is fond of saying; “Follow the data, theory be dammed!”  Being more of an engineer than scientist this is my view as well.  And our ten plus years of data says that there are mass fluctuations or QVF LIKE effects available to be engineered, so we press on.

Two things. First, traditional quantum mechanics is not machian. An observation is not just dependent on initial state, but also on final state. In other words, you start up an experiment, you let it evolve, then you observe it, collapsing the system in the process.

Second, such things as "wormhole like momentum transfers" and "background instantaneous QM entanglements between mass elements" are artifacts of the models not of reality. They also appear crudely equivalent for what that's worth. Perhaps this is an indication of some real faster than light exchange of information which is the necessary precondition for any interesting FTL effects, but we haven't actually observed such effects. In particular, the mass fluctuations which Woodward and perhaps others seek, may not exist in the observable world.

Finally, I see no point to arguing with Wheeler or Feynman. The standard general relativity model doesn't have instantaneous gravity effects. Their opinions won't change that. Everything interacts at the speed of light. Real world may be different, but as mentioned above  we need observation of these effects. Woodward's efforts here do not seem sufficient. We need extraordinary results for extraordinary claims.
Karl Hallowell

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #58 on: 07/12/2008 12:46 AM »
Khallow:

Well, you've given us the reasons why you think propellantless propulsion (P-P) can't work, so do you have any contributions to this forum on how P-P could be made to work, or are you just content with the status quo? 

BTW, we do have tentative data supporting the existence of mass fluctuation like signals.  However from your previous comments, I have to assume that the P-P test article will have to levitate under its own power before you will concede that there MIGHT be something interesting going on... 

I mentioned three propellantless methods on the first page. Aerobraking, gravity assists, and a conducting ring circling one of Earth's magnetic poles while generating an opposing magnetic field. We also have light sails, light propulsion, and various tricks for using EM fields and plasmas to deflect the solar wind. Aside from aerobraking these are all field-based. Contribution has been established.

Here's my problem. I see a scattering of hypothetical propulsion methods in this thread. Most don't actually have significant experimental evidence of any net force exerted. Even if we ignore all that, how are these methods going to generate more force for power consumed than light propulsion? That is, light propulsion seems to me to be the cap on the best thrust for power that you can get for a massless propulsion system.

With these fancier systems, you still have to explain why go through the effort? What's the advantages of these other methods?
Karl Hallowell

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #59 on: 07/12/2008 07:07 AM »
Quote
  It doesn't buy us what we really need IMO and that is interstellar flight with effective flight velocities greater than c.

Just because we "need" it doesn't mean we can get it. There's no evidence for FTL. Similarly, while we might be able to work the Casimir effect into some way to tap vacuum energy, we don't really have a plan for that either. From what I understand, it appears that a big problem with the attempts outlined in this thread to exploit "gravinertial" fluctuations (or whatever they're called) depends on the attempt (some sort of oscillation of a capacitor I gather) being quantum correlated with the fluctuation. There's no reason from our experimental evidence to assume one can do that. Even if you can, that's a long way from tapping vacuum energy or FTL.

[March 16,2009] Edit: Fixing only the quote tags since they were broken in a very ugly way.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2009 04:29 PM by khallow »
Karl Hallowell

Tags: