Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 688553 times)

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #400 on: 06/03/2009 04:37 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.
Read again the title of this thread and think again if this belongs here.

Fusion is the power source for the mach-effect thrusters, and may only be used for reaction boosting thrust in high-g needs.
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 Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #401 on: 06/03/2009 04:50 PM »
The vehicle you're proposing utilizes ordinary rocket propulsion.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #402 on: 06/04/2009 01:25 AM »
The vehicle you're proposing utilizes ordinary rocket propulsion.

Only for launch from planetary surfaces with too high gravity, and for venting reactor plasma waste products. Bulk of propulsion will be the ME thrusters.
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 GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #403 on: 06/04/2009 02:03 AM »
I like it.  How did you get the 7 meter core?  I've never understood how to get a guess as to the size of the core w/cooling, shielding etc. given a fusion core.  For the Poly one supposes the rings are superconducting and therefore probably YBCO cooled with N2.  Since the core needs cooling right at the rings, it seems logical to me 7 meters is enough but I'm curious what the Talk Poly people say here.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #404 on: 06/04/2009 04:26 AM »
Guys:

Until we actually understand what the REAL limits are for a G/I field thruster system, ideas like MLorrey’s MaGrid Fusion powered spacecraft need to be examined and kept in our design files until we know for sure what the highest efficiency obtainable for an MLT or its other G/I field based cousins can be.  Dr. Woodward is still of the opinion that a device utilizing only the M-E impulse term will be power limited by the onboard power supply, so if you want high thrust MLTs running with a delta mass ratio of less than 1.0, then be prepared to anti-up some hefty power levels measured in the MW to GW because the best efficiencies won't exceed 0.001 N/W. 

On the other-hand even Woodward acknowledges that if we can utilize the M-E wormhole term in a stable manner, then 1.0 N/W or better G/I drives are achievable because of the direct real-time energy coupling from the FOAM to the engine's local frame is permitted by the formation of all those transient nano-wormholes around each of the accelerated atoms in the dielectric.  However, Andrew Palfreyman's and my calculations show that if you are pushing on the G/I field and it pushes back by using either of these M-E methods, you are then by definition extracting energy from the G/I field that surround your ship and 1.0+ N/W thrusters become a real possibility.  Only time and more G/I prototypes will tell us what G/I roads are really open to us, so get out there and start building!
Star-Drive

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #405 on: 06/04/2009 04:27 AM »
Well, it seems that they are of the opinion that the core can be almost any size. Maybe 10m dia. at first but perhaps it could be scaled down to something that would fit under a car bonnet*

*hood, to the Americans ;)
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Spacenick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #406 on: 06/04/2009 04:30 PM »
It's a pity that it's highly doubtful this technology is at all possible.
However if it is, well then a 1 N/W thruster woudl definitely solve all problems of space flight at once and we could quite easily built a reusable Shuttle that could bring 25 tons to LEO and with a recharge there even to the moon an beyond and it could quite likely do it for the cost of a train ride across the country and maybe with a launch every 48 hours or so.
That would make building huge space nuclear powered ships not much more expensive then building a nuclear submarine maybe even less expensive and travel to Mars wouldn't be much of a chalenge anymore.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #407 on: 06/04/2009 06:03 PM »
Spacenick:

Considering the promise of this new gravinertial (G/I) field based Mach-Effect (M-E) science and technology, and remember that it is based on Einstein's already well vetted General Relativity Theory (GRT) with only minor tweaks by Dennis Sciama and James Woodward along the way, why do you say that this technology is; "it's highly doubtful is at all possible"? 

The M-E is just a transient inertial effect lurking under Newton's three laws of motion that has been neglected up until now because rockets were good enough to do the things we wanted to do up until now.  Well guess what?  Rockets ARE NO LONGER good enough to do the things we need to be doing to become a space faring civilization!  So we had best stop wishing for a panacea for our rocket problems and find a new path.  That is what the M-E group is trying to do and the more who are willing to participate in this new adventure, the quicker we will find the right way(s) to do it.

The self-financed M-E R&D group also continues to gather hard data that indicates that this M-E based transient mass fluctuation phenomenon does indeed exist, and if the collective aerospace community would apply itself to resolving the remaining issues surrounding its use, the major paradigm shift in our capabilities you comment on will become possible and affordable.  For an example, Dr. Woodward just completed a six month rotary test article study developing an unambiguous demonstration that the M-E’s predicted mass fluctuations can be generated on cue when the appropriate magnitude of bulk acceleration and time rate of change of power through a ceramic dielectric is generated.  This mass fluctuation data, which indicated that it can be generated on cue, has already been presented on this forum.  However, what we had missed before in our previous M-E experiments over the last ten years was the required MAGNITUDE of the bulk acceleration and dP/dt parameters, such as the need for a bulk acceleration relative to the distant stars that is measured in thousands of gees instead of just gees.  We also have to simultaneous maximize the time rate of change of power (dP/dt) being pumped through the accelerated dielectric in question that has to be measured in kVARs (Volt-Amp-Reactive) or tens of kVARs instead of just VARs if we want to generate tens to thousands of Newton of thrust in our M-E based field thrusters.  This is information that was hidden away in the M-E’s wave equation’s constants of integration that were NOT inherently obvious to the most casual observer.   Given these new insights, I have moderately high hopes that the next generation of M-E tests articles just hitting the testing pipeline should perform much better than my Mach-2MHz test article’s previous best thrust output +0.5/-0.2 gram-force.   Of course the proof is in the pudding and Murphy is always waiting to make an ass of one, so we don’t expect any skeptics out there to really believe this stuff until we can float in the test article under its own power for this pivotal demonstration.
Star-Drive

Offline Spacenick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #408 on: 06/04/2009 09:13 PM »
If what you say is true, well then goodby rockets hello starships.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #409 on: 06/05/2009 04:10 AM »
That's the whole point of Paul March's WarpStar paper.  Have you read it?

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #410 on: 06/07/2009 08:06 PM »
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1114

Guest: Dr. James Woodward. Topic: Mach/Woodward Effect, revolutionary propulsion, gravitation, inertia, electrostriction, specific impulse, interstellar space travel, wormholes. Dr. James Woodward returned to The Space Show for updates on his work with the Mach Effect, also referred to as the Woodward Effect. The first part of the discussion served as primer to the work of Ernst Mach, what the Mach effect is, and how it’s plausible that it could someday lead to interstellar space travel. In this discussion, we learned about propellant, the dialectical constraints, engineering issues, wormholes, and much more. Dr. Woodward also spoke about acceleration, electrostriction, and the physics supporting the theories. We also talked about experiments and what constitutes science. This is a good discussion you will not want to miss. Dr. Woodward also spoke about a paper delivered at SPESIF 2009 by Pharis Williams on five-dimensional theories, electromagnetism, and gravity. You will want to hear what he has to say about this line of research. Dr. Woodward was asked about the rift between the science and engineering fields with the social science fields. He also talked with us about what constitutes serious out of the box research versus whacky ideas, that is real physics, real science. He then elaborated with us as to his interest in revolutionary propulsion. A listener even asked him how he funded his research and if it was ready for primetime, such as an NSF grant. Again, don't miss his response to this question. If you have a comment or question for Dr. James Woodward, please send him a note at jwoodward@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU. His Power Point presentation from the SPESIF 2009 conference will soon be available at the SPESIF 2009 website at http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
« Last Edit: 06/07/2009 08:09 PM by marsavian »

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #411 on: 06/08/2009 09:04 PM »
I like it.  How did you get the 7 meter core?  I've never understood how to get a guess as to the size of the core w/cooling, shielding etc. given a fusion core.  For the Poly one supposes the rings are superconducting and therefore probably YBCO cooled with N2.  Since the core needs cooling right at the rings, it seems logical to me 7 meters is enough but I'm curious what the Talk Poly people say here.

The core is a 3 meter core. The reactor housing is 7 meters diameter. According to rnebel and Bussard, a core with 3 meter diameter magnets would generate 100 MW, one with 3.1 meter magnets would generate 1 GW. The reactor will run hydrogen rich to minimize bremsstrahlung, so there will be excess heat to cool to avoid built up thermalization. The heat will be regen cooled by hydrogen that would in a reaction thrust mode be vented through the bell nozzle and given additional magnetic thrust. Otherwise would be run through the turbogenerators to generate more power for the thrusters and to conserve hydrogen in space. The high thrust would only be needed for exiting atmosphere/reaching escape velocity.

The magnetic core is surrounded by the outer grid that does power conversion and containment, and 1 meter further out from there is the reactor wall, which is made up of hydrogen cooling lines.

There should be enough surplus power available to power up the magnetic ram scoop in the nose for collecting interstellar hydrogen to refuel in transit, also to serve to shield and deflect a lot of unwanted dust and gas at significant percentages of C.

Yes, the magnet toruses get coolant running through them.

The main issues I see in this design is having the ability to radiate and cool the hydrogen in regen/power producing mode. The deployable radiators in the landing struts may be too small to be sufficient.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2009 09:06 PM by mlorrey »
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 Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #412 on: 06/17/2009 07:31 PM »
G/I Thruster:

“Paul barely understands it and he's been doing this physics for more than a decade.  He's explaining with recourse to particles and waves when in fact this is NOT what the theory is all about.  It's FIELD THEORY.”

You keep hammering everyone in this forum that we are not using the idea of the physics “field theory” correctly.  However, have you ever bothered to fully appreciate what a field theory in physics can cover?  For example let’s take a look at Wiki on what they have to say about the “Field” in Physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics

“In physics, a field is a physical quantity associated to each point of spacetime.  A field can be classified as a scalar field, a vector field, or a tensor field, according to whether the value of the field at each point is a scalar, a vector, or, more generally, a tensor, respectively.  For example, the Newtonian gravitational field is a vector field: specifying its value at a point in spacetime requires three numbers, the components of the gravitational field vector at that point.



Field theory usually refers to a construction of the dynamics of a field, i.e. a specification of how a field changes with time or with respect to other components of the field.  Usually this is done by writing a Lagrangian or a Hamiltonian of the field, and treating it as the classical mechanics (or quantum mechanics) of a system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom. The resulting field theories are referred to as classical or quantum field theories.”


In short, a field theory contains charge sources and the energy interactions between these charge sources that is described by the interaction rules as applied to a spatial matrix with arbitrarily small spacing between the points examined in the field’s defined volume.  These field sources can and do have mass such as in any of the atomic elementary particles.  The energy interactions between these charge sources can take the form of particle-like interactions between sources such as photons being exchanged in quantum electrodynamics, or they can be described as energy waves propagating through the field’s volume as in hydrodynamics that use particles to convey these forces at each point in the field.   In any of these field theories though, the usage of particles and waves as parts in the field theory is perfectly acceptable.
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #413 on: 06/17/2009 07:57 PM »
Lampy:

"So... how important are the energy changes? If we have ten million point source dwarves jumping up and down in unison, do we get the same effect or is a change in electron density a key factor?"

The M-E derivation is less than revealing on how the bulk acceleration and dP/dt power flux creates the G/I densification waves that can transiently shield the accelerated dielectric from the ambient G/I field.  I tried to come up with a summary slide on how this works today, but it’s still lacking something in the translation.  However the M-E math does indicate that the larger the dP/dt flux in the accelerated cap, the larger delta mass signature becomes.  And the latest rotary test series indicates that the delta mass signature is proportional to the applied bulk acceleration so one could assume that the total delta mass signature should be proportional to the product of the bulk acceleration times the magnitude of the applied dP/dt power flux.   


 “Interesting, sounds much like raising or lowering vacuum energy levels.

It could be viewed that way.


This G/I densification... this is increase in something akin to ambient gravitational strength, isn't it?”

Since the G/I field is derived from the universe’s gravitational field, the transient G/I field densification could be viewed as having a higher gravitational energy level during that time period.


Quote
“Then, is it thru the inertia wave that you link electromotive force with the force of gravity?”

I wish I could say “Yes”, but at this stage of the game all I can say is that might be the case, but without more experimental data, my answer has to remain a “maybe”.


Connected to electrons themselves, you think, or electromagnetic fields?
[/quote]


IMO it's the electromagnetic fields created in the accelerated dielectric that is undergoing a dP/dt power flux which creates transient E-fields and B-fields in and around the dielectric.
« Last Edit: 06/17/2009 07:59 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #414 on: 06/18/2009 03:12 AM »
So, the "cap-electrode E-field induced acceleration vectors of each ...[ion]... will be countered by the equal and opposite vector accelerations..."  This sounds like conservation of momentum, but it doesn't sound like forward motion.  But then you go on to posit that the second "externally applied force" is that which accelerates the dielectric mass in the opposite direction.  It is the periodicity of this force which you control to change directions of the mass at precisely the moment when it has "less" mass.

When we were kids, we used to do this at the lake in rental canoes.  You stand up in the canoe, and try to propel it forward by rhythmically pushing your body around, standing in a sort of surfer's pose.  As you can imagine, it's virtually impossible, but a great deal of fun.  Your paddle ball analogy (or whoever's) is more or less the same thing.  This is where the conservation of momentum appears to break down.

What the G/I drive is more akin to the Jesus lizard. It runs like crazy across the water because it makes its action fast (putting its foot down) and then keeping the momentum by swinging its foot forward whilst the water behind flows back into the temporary crater it made in the water.

So that's two actions, down + rear and forward cycling, just like walking.

From Star-Drive's wiki link:

Quote
If an electrical charge is moved, the effects on another charge do not appear instantaneously. The first charge feels a reaction force, picking up momentum, but the second charge feels nothing until the influence, traveling at the speed of light, reaches it and gives it the momentum. Where is the momentum before the second charge moves? By the law of conservation of momentum it must be somewhere. Physicists have found it of "great utility for the analysis of forces"[3] to think of it as being in the field.

See, it's just a matter of cheating. Your momentum is restored to the universe... after 15 billion years...
« Last Edit: 06/18/2009 03:39 AM by Lampyridae »
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #415 on: 06/18/2009 05:41 PM »
Lampy:

The delayed conservation of momentum in the cosmological gravinertial field problem is very much akin to the case of the submarine's propeller back-reacting off the expelled water.  If the sub is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, how long does the expelled water from the prop take to interact with the crust of the Earth if the water flux is directed horizontally to the surface of the ocean where the nearest land could be thousands of miles away?  And how washed out will that water flux become before it gets there??  The time lags, velocity magnitudes and amount of water participating in the propeller's conservation dance with the Earth will be very much different than when this water flux started at the prop.

BTW, I like your Jesus Lizard example, for it makes for a great visual example of describing this "by your bootstraps" propulsion system.  The devil IS in the details!  And just for fun find below a U-Tube URL to the Lizard in question:


« Last Edit: 06/18/2009 05:56 PM by Star-Drive »
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 #416 on: 06/19/2009 02:15 AM »
I like the imagery of the lizard also, but the the lizard is pushing on a local physical medium.  I've been thinking about fields, and the fact that their effects propagate at light speed, but I don't get yet what you're pushing against.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #417 on: 06/19/2009 03:49 AM »
I like the imagery of the lizard also, but the the lizard is pushing on a local physical medium.  I've been thinking about fields, and the fact that their effects propagate at light speed, but I don't get yet what you're pushing against.

And who says that a magnetic or G/I field isn't a physcial medium?  Last time I looked electric induction motor's rotors don't push on anything "physical" but they sure do work...
Star-Drive

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #418 on: 06/19/2009 06:19 AM »
"permittivity" and "permeability" are both used to describe the vacuum WRT magnetic fields.

One of the objections against rocket motors in space was that they "don't have anything to push against." Picture a charged particle (a proton), rushing through space. It encounters a big positively charge particle (Fe3+?) directly in its path.

What happens is that the proton is nudged aside *before* the Fe3+ ion feels the effects. If you think of the ions as being nuts embedded in balls of (weightless) jelly you get the idea. The momentum is stored in the jelly before the nuts (and the rest of the jelly) feel it. Exactly the same thing happens with the G/I field except on a much longer time scale.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

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 #419 on: 06/19/2009 12:21 PM »
Accepting that it's a physical medium, then what about the idea that it's non-local?  That what you're pushing against is so far away?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags: