Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 665478 times)

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #500 on: 08/11/2009 05:33 AM »
Mikegi, if you want to have a reasonable discussion on this issue, send me a note with your email and I'll forward it to Jim Woodward.  It's bad form to respond to a note that was originally not written to this forum and doesn't allow Dr. Woodward to answer your points.  I think you'd find Jim is very congenial and would take any serious questions seriously.

BTW, are you a physicist?  I ask because I'm a bit stymied that you consider action at a distance the "kiss of death".  We've been looking for gravity waves and gravitons for more than three decades with no success and yet you're so sure they have to exist?  I find the reasoning behind this eludes me.

To the best of my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm wrong here; there is no experimental evidence to date of either gravity waves or gravity particles, but there is evidence for Mach Effects.  Maybe its just me but I want to see physical evidence. . .
« Last Edit: 08/11/2009 06:01 AM by GI-Thruster »

Offline SimonDM

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #501 on: 08/11/2009 08:38 AM »
So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.
You should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute , specifically about Hilbert, Lorentz (they're called Lorentz transformations, not Einstein transformations) and Poincaré.

Quote from: mlorrey
Nobody could until Feynman said, "the photon follows all possible paths until it determines which path is shortest in time",
Pierre de Fermat, January 1, 1662

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_principle

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #502 on: 08/11/2009 12:09 PM »
mikegi:

"Physicists who rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance made those great advances in the late 1800s. Physics transitioned from the electric+magnetic laws to electromagnetic waves."

As G/I thruster noted, Jim Woodward is the best man to answer your questions, but in the meantime I'll try to point out a few details you havn't discussed.

Since you want to point to James C. Maxwell's 1860s Trieste on electromagnetism (E&M), you might also remember that his E&M propagation solution, speed c = (mu0 * e0)^-½, has two roots in it, not just one, with the positive one being the “normal” forward in time, retarded wave solution, and the other one being the negative root advanced wave solution that implies an E&M wave that propagates backwards in time.  And remember that Maxwell did not toss out that negative root solution.  It was folks like Oliver Heaviside who followed Maxwell that threw out this backwards in time solution as being “unphysical” to them.  However, throwing out that baby in this E&M bathwater may well have been throwing away the keys to the universe.  Luckily, John Wheeler and Richard Feynman picked up Maxwell’s advanced solution results again in the 1940s with their radiation absorber theory, see (http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/dtime/node2.html ), and then John Cramer used it as the lynch pin of his Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM).  ( http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti/ )  Perhaps these approaches to reality may never pan out, or they are just another way to describe a hyperdimensional realm of greater than 4D that we are just starting to sense, but either way, the secrets of gravinertial drives are smack dab in the middle of them.
Star-Drive

Offline hec031

  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #503 on: 08/11/2009 12:25 PM »
Hey guys, what about the EM Drive concept? Haven't heard anything here about it. I guess there no advocates for that concept here.

If it's real it could have a near term application.

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #504 on: 08/11/2009 12:33 PM »
Quote
To the best of my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm wrong here; there is no experimental evidence to date of either gravity waves or gravity particles, but there is evidence for Mach Effects
The wormhole throat is in fact a hyperspace field, isn't it? Therefore the Mach Effects can be explained extreme well with the hyperspace theory of Kip Thorne.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #505 on: 08/11/2009 12:59 PM »
Star-Drive, GI-Thruster

What's your opinion on Heim's work and theories in regards to quantum gravity forces ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory#Heim.27s_predictions_for_a_quantum_gravity_force
http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/burkhard-heim.htm
« Last Edit: 08/11/2009 01:12 PM by marsavian »

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #506 on: 08/11/2009 02:06 PM »
BTW, are you a physicist?
Nope, not a physicist. I'm not even a good amateur -- still stuck on the very basics. For example, I have no idea how an old time electromagnetic wave causes an electron to accelerate, much less how an electron "absorbs" a photon. Do you?

Quote
  I ask because I'm a bit stymied that you consider action at a distance the "kiss of death". We've been looking for gravity waves and gravitons for more than three decades with no success and yet you're so sure they have to exist?  I find the reasoning behind this eludes me.
You can use action-at-a-distance (AAAD) when it applies and makes your work easier: short distances and long time scales. EEs do it all this time when we analyze circuits using lumped components like capacitors and inductors responding to low frequencies. It works because the speed of light is so high that any wave effects settle down very quickly compared to the analysis time scale, it is effectively instantaneous. Increase the frequency enough and all sorts of weirdness happens ... until you take into account the finite speed of propagation and use transmission line theory.

If Woodward is proposing some sort of AAAD then I hope he believes that his theory is actually the result of unknown forces that travel at an enormous multiple of the speed of light. I read his stuff a looong time ago and thought it was interesting -- but I'm just as much of a cracked pot as everyone else! The link I have saved no longer appears to work:

http://chaos.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html

IMHO, most of this is noise. If you want to see where the next "big thing" is more likely to be discovered, you have to look at the more mundane hardcore experimenters like Grischkowsky at OSU:

http://utol.ecen.ceat.okstate.edu/publicat.htm

It's not as exciting as warp drives, photon torpedoes, etc. But I believe that they will eventually discover reproducible experimental results that can't be explained with current physics theories.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #507 on: 08/11/2009 04:44 PM »
hec asked my opine of the Shawyer EM drive and Marsavian my thoughts on the Heim stuff.  If you read far enough back in this thread you'll find these subjects dealt with in much more detail but in short--I have been retained in the past to survey all this stuff and judge whether it is at the point it should be supported by investors.  The ONLY approach to advanced propulsion I can recommend as "emergent" meaning it both a) is supported by externally and internally consistent, peer-reviewed theory and b) has empirical data in support is Dr. Jim Woodward's theory.  LockMart has done their own study like mine and come to the same conclusion.

IMHO, Shawyer's theory violates conservation and this is why it has been char-broiled in the peer review journals.  Heim's theory relies upon things like gravitons which we have been looking for now for more than 3 decades with no success.  I therefore see little reason to take an interest in Heim.  Also, there are a host of other difficulties with Heim's stuff and IIRC, even some connections with fraud.  But the first is enough for me to lose interest.  Until we find evidence if gravitons, it seems obvious to me Heim is probably wrong.

On the other hand, we do have physical evidence of Mach Effects. . .

Mike, no.  I'm a philosopher, not a physicist; which is why I am wholly dependent upon things like peer review.  Don't leave home without it.   :-)

BTW, Woodward is not proposing anything about AAAD that is not included in General Relativity.  There's no new physics here--it's just a combination of Einstein and Mach with the only novelty being their combination.

Offline hec031

  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #508 on: 08/11/2009 05:55 PM »
GI,

What surprises me is that you guys know Pete at NRO and he won't fund Woodwards effort. He is good at funding crazy ideas with far less emperical evidence to back it than you guys have for yours.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #509 on: 08/11/2009 06:28 PM »
Looks like we're talking about different Pete's.  The one I thought you were talking about works for USAF at the Pentagon.  Maybe you ought to forward that email to Paul after all.

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #510 on: 08/11/2009 07:18 PM »
On the other hand, we do have physical evidence of Mach Effects. . .

Mike, no.  I'm a philosopher, not a physicist; which is why I am wholly dependent upon things like peer review.  Don't leave home without it.   :-)

BTW, Woodward is not proposing anything about AAAD that is not included in General Relativity.  There's no new physics here--it's just a combination of Einstein and Mach with the only novelty being their combination.
I did a quick google search and read through some the experiments. It seems like the numbers are way off and, worse, not even measuring the supposed Mach Effect. The Cramer experiment wasn't "inconclusive", it was a disaster! Properly accounting for all the plain old electromagnetic forces in these experiments is going to be difficult enough, nevermind the small signal you're trying to detect.

Woodward definitely seems to be using AAAD in his theory, both in the quote earlier and in papers on the internet ("non-local momentum transfer" and "advanced waves").

Bad experiments + patents + AAAD = pegged skeptic meter



« Last Edit: 08/11/2009 08:44 PM by mikegi »

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #511 on: 08/11/2009 09:01 PM »
With all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless.  For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have.  I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments.  Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly.  And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.
« Last Edit: 08/11/2009 09:30 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline hec031

  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #512 on: 08/11/2009 09:40 PM »
I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with Woodward's theory and even if there is, theories can be updated and changed. The facts still stand, he has a real effect, the theory only helps develop the technology further, that's it's main purpose. The theory does not make the effect any less real.

The critical issue that Woodward has to address so he can get more attention and funding (in my opinion) is to find a away to scale the total output thrust of his devices into the milliNewton range. Trust me this is were you start getting phone calls, visitors and NDA's start flying left and right.

Just my suggestion.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #513 on: 08/12/2009 02:49 AM »
hec, you're spot-on.  This is why Woodward is returning to UFG studies in the Fall.

I think we'll see obvious results by October but I get these futurist projections wrong all the time.  :-)

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3178
  • Liked: 357
  • Likes Given: 694
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #514 on: 08/12/2009 04:12 AM »
I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with Woodward's theory and even if there is, theories can be updated and changed. The facts still stand, he has a real effect, the theory only helps develop the technology further, that's it's main purpose. The theory does not make the effect any less real.
Umm... If the theory is wrong, and the effect is actually due to something else, there's no reason to believe the predictions of the incorrect theory will apply to the correct explanation. Particularly if the actual explanation is some bit of mundane physics that wasn't properly accounted for in the experiment!

mikegi: The pages you mention can be accessed via the Internet Archive http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chaos.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #515 on: 08/12/2009 04:17 AM »
Edited due to an uncommon pang of common sense.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2009 03:57 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #516 on: 08/12/2009 05:54 AM »
With all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless.  For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have.  I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments.  Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly.  And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.
Cramer experiment report:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdf

Found possible Mach Effect signal on initial test. When he rotated the device 90°, which should have eliminated any Mach Effect, he got the same signal. Somehow this experiment was deemed "inconclusive" rather than "meaningless".

======================
March experiment abstract:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..813.1321M

The experimental results were off by "one to two orders of magnitude" on the high side. In other words, they didn't see the Mach/Woodward Effect but rather some unaccounted for forces/interactions in their test setup ... just like Cramer.


Hop: thanks for the link.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2506
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #517 on: 08/12/2009 07:41 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.


Any results yet?

Offline hec031

  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #518 on: 08/12/2009 12:50 PM »
Hop,

Like most people you are missing the big picture of what a theory is and what it is really for. I’m certain you view theories as more important that empirical evidence. I’m sure you see a theory as an absolute, when they are work in progress and always in need of refinement. Theories are a human artifact, they are for our benefit not natures or it’s processes.

Case and point; how insects could fly was an aerodynamic mystery that was only recently resolved and yet even with that gap in our theoretical knowledge base insects manage to stay flying and we managed to make airplanes using the same faulty theoretical aerodynamic model.

If a simple and mundane, theory can account for all the empirical facts in the Woodward effect than were is it? The lack of this simple and mundane model makes a strong argument that the effect is unconventional in nature.

And now, we are right back were we started.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #519 on: 08/12/2009 01:28 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.

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.


Any results yet?


Nope, I ran into a 52 MHz driver transmitter problem and I'm currently trying to repair or replace it.  It's just another trouble shooting time eater and expense I have to deal with in my spare time...
Star-Drive

Tags: