Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 689724 times)

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #420 on: 06/19/2009 03:58 PM »
There's no coherent theory of this based upon waves or particles.  If you want to try to see it in light of wave or particle theory you can, and Paul frequently has, but there is no real theory for this.  Jim Woodward's gravinertial theory is pure field theory and just like all electromagnetic field theory we use to explain the action of induction motors, it is not necessary to posit waves or particles.

So until someone actually finds a graviton or a gravity wave, best is to say the local effect pushes on the field but that the field isn't "made " of anything.  (This is not the same as "non-locality.")  Any other explanation is just pure guesswork and does not deserve to be presented as part of a cogent theory.  That's right: gravity waves, inertial waves, density waves--all not part of Jim Woodward's theory.  All extraneous. 

This from a guy who is fairly committed to the theory of quantum loop gravity. . .but there is only rationalistic support for QLG, there is no evidence yet so there's no point in me trying to force bits of QLG into Jim's theory.

Offline Eric_S

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #421 on: 06/28/2009 09:57 PM »
If you don't mind me wondering, does anybody here have a rough guess of when the next empirical test is due?

I know that data analysis, etc. takes time, but it'd still be interesting to have that to form a ball park guess about when one can expect results.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #422 on: 06/28/2009 10:04 PM »
If you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer.  He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September.  There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls.   There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. 

Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #423 on: 06/28/2009 11:20 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?

Ok you need to understand that inertia, the resistance to acceleration, is a sort of gravity tension on any mass by all the other mass in the universe. Imagine that every mass is linked to every other mass in the universe by long rubber bands. Obviously this causes a lot of tension in every direction and would inhibit any object so linked to everything else from changing their acceleration. Velocity is fine, things stay in motion that are in motion, and stay at rest that are at rest. Changing those states with acceleration creates resistance to the acceleration via those rubber bands, much as CEMF arises within an electric coil in response to application of EMF. Inertia is a reaction against acceleration.

Now, if you are able to change the mass of an object when its accelerating in one direction, versus its mass when its moving in the opposite direction, then the reaction will change and result in a net acceleration.
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 #424 on: 06/28/2009 11:51 PM »
"Inertia is a reaction against acceleration."

Exactly right and it's because this reaction has a time delay as described by GR, that mass temporarily fluctuates.  If gravity propagated instantaneously, this would not be true and GR would be wrong, but gravity propagates at c and necessarily entails this time delay.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #425 on: 06/29/2009 02:47 AM »
Hey fellas,

Just thought you might want to read this. Our European buddies have been making interesting progress over the past couple of years.

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf

What I find interesting is the mass increase of Cooper-pairs and the idea of superconductors breaking gauge invariance... gravitons acquiring mass which increases the gravitomagnetic effect 10^30 fold. This results in measured tangential accelerations of 100 microgees. I wonder if the same results could be explained by G-I theory?
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 #426 on: 06/29/2009 03:20 AM »
Any idea how old this is?  Just taking a short glance but looks like stuff from STAIF '07 or so, from back before Martin found he was getting the same readings without the superconductor.

After discovering this, at STAIF '08 he had sold the idea of replications to the Aerospace Company, EarthTech and some group in NZ but continued studies threw that all to the winds.  Now if Martin has something new to share I'm certainly interested but he didn't present at SPESIF this year and so far as I know, no new news.  I don't think he knows yet why he has the readings he's had.  Certainly, he didn't need a superconducting ring for them like in this paper.

This is what comes from experimenting without solid theory.  Martin was following a rabbit trail based on things like Pod's work but again like Pod, with no idea why he should find something interesting.

Now if he has some theory and new results, I'm interested; but don't hold your breath.  At STAIF '08 he was looking for billion dollar funding for a huge exploratory project but his results just don't add up.

Martin is a careful experimenter, but he can't explain what he says he sees.  That being the case, he can continue to fund his own research.
« Last Edit: 06/29/2009 03:37 AM by GI-Thruster »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #427 on: 06/29/2009 04:42 AM »
If you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer.  He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September.  There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls.   There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. 

Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.

I finished the MLT-2009 this morning and I'm currently running instrumentation calibration tests on it to see if the beast will work as advertised.  I did find out today though that it resonates at ~51.6 MHz verses the 52.0 MHz design point, but the capacitive voltage divider for the cap-ring doesn't seem to be working as planned.  However the 2-turn B-field sensor coil is working to spec.  I hope to have this test article on a shielded load cell by the end of July to see if it will produce any detectable thrust with the maximum peak voltages obtainable uising my 100W, 52MHz RF generator driving it.
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #428 on: 06/29/2009 11:52 AM »
If you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer.  He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September.  There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls.   There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. 

Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.

I finished the MLT-2009 this morning and I'm currently running instrumentation calibration tests on it to see if the beast will work as advertised.  I did find out today though that it resonates at ~51.6 MHz verses the 52.0 MHz design point, but the capacitive voltage divider for the cap-ring doesn't seem to be working as planned.  However the 2-turn B-field sensor coil is working to spec.  I hope to have this test article on a shielded load cell by the end of July to see if it will produce any detectable thrust with the maximum peak voltages obtainable uising my 100W, 52MHz RF generator driving it.


And here is a picture of the completed test article.
Star-Drive

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #429 on: 06/29/2009 04:17 PM »
The coil on the underside (lower left) is for matching?  What happened with the stray capacitance issue and how does that affect your Q?

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #430 on: 06/29/2009 04:41 PM »
Excuse me, guys, but the measurement is in inches or metres? I mean - what is the lenght of the device anyway

btw, I apologize for mention it, but you have to know that there are many europeans here and we have different measurement scale. Not that we can't calculate, but it's about convenience :)

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #431 on: 06/29/2009 04:56 PM »
Excuse me, guys, but the measurement is in inches or metres? I mean - what is the lenght of the device anyway

btw, I apologize for mention it, but you have to know that there are many europeans here and we have different measurement scale. Not that we can't calculate, but it's about convenience :)

4.00" = 4.00 inches = 10.16cm = 0.1016 meter.
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #432 on: 06/29/2009 05:02 PM »
The coil on the underside (lower left) is for matching?  What happened with the stray capacitance issue and how does that affect your Q?

The 6-Turn, 1.00" (2.54cm) wide yellow mylar covered coil on the bottom of the test article is the matching coil L1 that is sized to provide enough inductance to resonant the MLT's complex impedance at ~52.0 MHz.  As to the stray capacitance and Quality factor issues, I'll be able to tell you about them after I get through running a frequency sweep of the test article from 2.0 MHz up to 200 MHz while using a controlled load impedance.  That will happen in the next few days as my day job & home duties permit.
Star-Drive

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #433 on: 06/29/2009 07:46 PM »
4.00" = 4.00 inches = 10.16cm = 0.1016 meter.
Thanks

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 #434 on: 06/30/2009 09:21 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?

Ok you need to understand that inertia, the resistance to acceleration, is a sort of gravity tension on any mass by all the other mass in the universe. Imagine that every mass is linked to every other mass in the universe by long rubber bands. Obviously this causes a lot of tension in every direction and would inhibit any object so linked to everything else from changing their acceleration. Velocity is fine, things stay in motion that are in motion, and stay at rest that are at rest. Changing those states with acceleration creates resistance to the acceleration via those rubber bands, much as CEMF arises within an electric coil in response to application of EMF. Inertia is a reaction against acceleration.

Now, if you are able to change the mass of an object when its accelerating in one direction, versus its mass when its moving in the opposite direction, then the reaction will change and result in a net acceleration.

This doesn't make any sense.  Why would "tension in every direction" care about acceleration but be fine with velocity?  If you actually think about something tied to a bunch of rubber bands from every direction, if that something is in motion, the rubber bands have to change length, causing the tensions to change.  I don't see how it makes any sense to say that uniform motion makes sense with that metaphor.  Likewise an instantaneous acceleration does not change the band lengths (it changes the rate of change of band lengths), so the bands shouldn't even know it happens until delta t has ellapsed to allow position change.

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 #435 on: 06/30/2009 09:32 PM »
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"? 

He says that because it violates every observation of conservation of momentum we have ever made.  Ever.  There has never been a case of momentum conserving by reacting only on distant stars at a distance of the scale of the universe.  You must ask yourself seriously why does this effect not occur in ANY other situation.  Why is it that only these special devices are able to harness this reaction over such a scale? 

GR (in the form of Einstein's formulation) is extremely well tested and proven for its range of valid scales.  Any "minor tweaks" must not break any other part of the theory as it currently stands, because every observation we have made so far using it has proven true.  I have not had time to read any of the theory papers to see whether this is true or not, but other similar attempts to "tweak" GR and Newton's laws have failed in the past.  I am not saying it is not possible, just that I agree it is extremely unlikely. 

Yes I fully understand the ramifications if it were possible, but wishing does not make it so.

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 #436 on: 06/30/2009 09:43 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:




There is nothing whatsoever delayed about submarine propulsion.  Momentum is immediately conserved as the water expelled has the same momentum as that imparted to the sub.  As the wake moves downstream away from the sub, it entrains more water, lowering velocity, but the momentum is still there.  Eventually the momentum is transferred to the Earth as viscous shear forces or stagnation at the landmass.  Throughout this entire process momentum is always locally conserved. 

Momentum is always locally conserved with the lizard as well.  The lizard is in effect a pulsejet pointed slightly down and to the rear.  The momentum imparted by the foot impact travels down and back in a wake that eventually imparts its momentum to the earth, just like the sub wake.  There is nothing astonishing or "by your bootstraps" about it.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #437 on: 06/30/2009 09:51 PM »
The effect probably does occur in many other situations, such as when a steel ball bounces.  The trouble is that unless you specifically design a thruster to take advantage of the effect, it is too small to note.  This is much the same as many other forces--magnetism for instance.  Unless you mine magnetite and refine it, or later make a permanent magnet out of a specific material suited to this, it's very unlikely you'll make use of magnetism.  It was certainly studied and used many centuries before it was understood, but only used in the most simple ways.  A makeshift compass from floating a magnetite sliver on a leaf, etc.  What it took for magnets to come into their own was a fuller understanding of the field theory behind the force, a description of how magnetism works, that enabled construction of things like induction motors.

That's what we have with Jim's theory, an explanation for how/why M-E ought to work that should enable us to move past the seeming inconsequential natural occurrence of the force, like a magnetized sliver on a leaf; to a gravinertial induction motor.

You have to look at the literature and decide from there.  But certainly, M-E does not contradict GR in any way and it is not a violation of conservation in any way.  If it were, it would have been dismissed as a bad joke more than a decade ago.

Forget the "its too good to be true" argument.  If the folks had known where Maxwell and Lorentz's theories would lead them, no one would have believed it.

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 #438 on: 06/30/2009 09:59 PM »
"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.

This just isn't true.  For two particles in inertial frames (assuming they have not been accelerated recently), their fields extend infinitely far from the particles themselves.  Because relatively shows us that any two inertial frames are equivalent, we can choose a frame that follows the proton or the ion.  There is nothing special about the frame of the proton.  In either case, the field of the particle we are approaching imparts force on us, but the field of the particle we are traveling with travels with the particle, and imparts force on the other particle.  Apart from the already dangerous practice of trying to determine what happens first at relativistic velocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity) let's examine a frame that follows the center of mass of the particles.  In this frame, the proton travels in from the left, and the ion in from the right.  Both of them slow down at the same time (although not the same rate as the velocity of the heavier particle is already slower than that of the proton so that they have equal momentums) as momentum is transferred through the fields of the two particles to the other.  Once again, there is nothing delayed about it.

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 #439 on: 06/30/2009 10:21 PM »
The effect probably does occur in many other situations, such as when a steel ball bounces.  The trouble is that unless you specifically design a thruster to take advantage of the effect, it is too small to note.  This is much the same as many other forces--magnetism for instance.  Unless you mine magnetite and refine it, or later make a permanent magnet out of a specific material suited to this, it's very unlikely you'll make use of magnetism.  It was certainly studied and used many centuries before it was understood, but only used in the most simple ways.  A makeshift compass from floating a magnetite sliver on a leaf, etc.  What it took for magnets to come into their own was a fuller understanding of the field theory behind the force, a description of how magnetism works, that enabled construction of things like induction motors.

That's what we have with Jim's theory, an explanation for how/why M-E ought to work that should enable us to move past the seeming inconsequential natural occurrence of the force, like a magnetized sliver on a leaf; to a gravinertial induction motor.

You have to look at the literature and decide from there.  But certainly, M-E does not contradict GR in any way and it is not a violation of conservation in any way.  If it were, it would have been dismissed as a bad joke more than a decade ago.

Forget the "its too good to be true" argument.  If the folks had known where Maxwell and Lorentz's theories would lead them, no one would have believed it.

My point is not that the effect has not been made use of before (which it clearly has not) but that it has not even influenced any measurements we have ever taken.  If it is in fact occurring when a steel ball bounces, why has it never shown up in any measurements of them?  With magnetism, even before we understood it, we saw that it did things, some of which you have mentioned.  With this proposed effect, there is no evidence whatsoever (outside of the small group related to Woodward) that it exists at all.  Nothing at all from the quantum world all the way up to massive black holes.  Somewhere posted a while back that earlier efforts weren't producing noticeable results because the acceleration was not high enough and the currents were too low.  But what about particle accelerators?  Accelerations on particles can be enormous (I don't know an exact number, but it will be many orders of magnitude greater than those in the test apparati various people are working on). And the magnetic and electric fields in the detectors used are very strong, with enormous currents flowing.  Why is there no trace at all of the effect there?  There is no "seemingly inconsequential natural occurrence of the force" at all to move beyond.

I would posit that it does violate conservation as we know it (I don't know enough about it to say whether it violates GR).  I would say that that right there is enough for it to be dismissed as a bad joke by the mainstream.  You are essentially changing what it means to conserve momentum, and using that to say that you are not violating conservation.  What I am saying is that our understanding of conservation of momentum is in fact violated, and nothing has ever done that in the history of science--nothing.  Even if momentum is conserved at a distance as you suggest, nothing else has ever done that. 

As far as "too good to be true," it isn't the possible applications that make the theory too good to be true.  It is the fact that it does these things by breaking all the science we have ever formulated. 
« Last Edit: 12/02/2009 08:50 AM by blazotron »

Tags: