Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 692381 times)

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #680 on: 01/04/2010 03:34 AM »
Paul,
If you have the time,
Could you point me to link that explains what the shuttler-type experiment shows? for example, I understand the QVF on a torque pendulum, that is explained in the STAIF-2007 ppt, but what would one see as the output on Woodward's latest shuttler?

r/
« Last Edit: 01/04/2010 03:35 AM by cuddihy »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #681 on: 01/04/2010 04:25 AM »
Paul,
If you have the time,
Could you point me to link that explains what the shuttler-type experiment shows? for example, I understand the QVF on a torque pendulum, that is explained in the STAIF-2007 ppt, but what would one see as the output on Woodward's latest shuttler?

r/


Woodward's M-E shuttler device should demonstrate a net dc force with an ac cyclic force riding on top of it at the rectification frequency of 80 kHz.  Jim will be using his ~1.0 uN resolution ARC-Lite torque pendulum to dectect these Shuttler forces for this test series.
Star-Drive

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #682 on: 01/04/2010 05:09 PM »
Ok, now I'm confused on terminology:

"shuttler device" = rotary UFG or MLT on a torque pendulum?


Offline bpb3

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #683 on: 01/05/2010 12:19 AM »
First - I find it amusing and astonishing how a simple question can bootstrap a moribund topic like my last posting did.  This is fun!

Second - Given StarDrive's answer, one begins to consider whether or not the research into the Mach effect has reached the point of deminishing returns in regards to the scale of effort available to the 'garage tinkerer' despite his or her qualifications.   At what point does the evidence become conclusive?   (Lets not talk about riding into the NASA Admin's office on an MLT hover chair.)   

There has been some talk about the need for finding, creating, or even just specifying the working parameters of the materials needed for a practical MLT or its equivalent.  This reminds me of Edison's search for the proper filament for a light bulb.  He knew the theory was good - shoot some juice to a wire and it glows - but making it practical was the hard part.   So - do we know that the Mach-Lorentz Effect is real?   If so - how does one finance an Edison-like search for the proper materials?

It can't be too hard to raise the money.  The blacklight power guy has millons from investors and his theory is even weirder.   

P.S On my previous post I wrote "lasted" when I meant "latest" . I hope you didn't think I meant "blasted"!     

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #684 on: 01/05/2010 04:06 AM »
Ok, now I'm confused on terminology:

"shuttler device" = rotary UFG or MLT on a torque pendulum?


A shuttler device is one made from two PZT stacks that linearly push/pulls on a capacitor array over a distance of microns, thus inducing a cyclic bulk acceleration to the energy storing capcitors.  This new M-E based shuttler test article will be mounted in Woodward's exsitng torque pendulum that will be used to measure any net output forces generated.

Edit: Clarified, Spell checked and added Shuttler device slide.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2010 11:42 AM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #685 on: 01/05/2010 04:12 AM »
First - I find it amusing and astonishing how a simple question can bootstrap a moribund topic like my last posting did.  This is fun!

Second - Given StarDrive's answer, one begins to consider whether or not the research into the Mach effect has reached the point of deminishing returns in regards to the scale of effort available to the 'garage tinkerer' despite his or her qualifications.   At what point does the evidence become conclusive?   (Lets not talk about riding into the NASA Admin's office on an MLT hover chair.)   

There has been some talk about the need for finding, creating, or even just specifying the working parameters of the materials needed for a practical MLT or its equivalent.  This reminds me of Edison's search for the proper filament for a light bulb.  He knew the theory was good - shoot some juice to a wire and it glows - but making it practical was the hard part.   So - do we know that the Mach-Lorentz Effect is real?   If so - how does one finance an Edison-like search for the proper materials?

It can't be too hard to raise the money.  The blacklight power guy has millons from investors and his theory is even weirder.   

P.S On my previous post I wrote "lasted" when I meant "latest" . I hope you didn't think I meant "blasted"!   
 

"So - do we know that the Mach-Lorentz Effect is real?   If so - how does one finance an Edison-like search for the proper materials?"

Whether the M-E is real or not is in the eye of the beholder at this stage of the game.  There is enough data present to say soemthing curious is going on, but not enough high grade order of magnitude above the noise data that has been replicated in mutiple labs to say with certainty that it's for real as advertised.  As to financing, Woodward prefers not to get entangled in such schemes since he likes to work at his own self-financed pace and as his health status permits.  He is still fighting cancer...
Star-Drive

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #686 on: 01/06/2010 03:08 AM »
Ok, now I'm confused on terminology:

"shuttler device" = rotary UFG or MLT on a torque pendulum?


A shuttler device is one made from two PZT stacks that linearly push/pulls on a capacitor array over a distance of microns, thus inducing a cyclic bulk acceleration to the energy storing capcitors.  This new M-E based shuttler test article will be mounted in Woodward's exsitng torque pendulum that will be used to measure any net output forces generated.

Edit: Clarified, Spell checked and added Shuttler device slide.

Thanks for the answer & graphic.

Tom

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #687 on: 01/06/2010 06:16 PM »
"So - do we know that the Mach-Lorentz Effect is real?   If so - how does one finance an Edison-like search for the proper materials?"

Whether the M-E is real or not is in the eye of the beholder at this stage of the game.  There is enough data present to say soemthing curious is going on, but not enough high grade order of magnitude above the noise data that has been replicated in mutiple labs to say with certainty that it's for real as advertised.  As to financing, Woodward prefers not to get entangled in such schemes since he likes to work at his own self-financed pace and as his health status permits.  He is still fighting cancer...


Sounds like Bussard, cept at least he got Navy funding. Gah, capital financing isn't a 'scheme'. When it comes to investors and their money, if anything is a scheme is a false claim of scientific fact. Theres still plenty of people who are willing to toss in money even on a very speculative research project.
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: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #688 on: 01/06/2010 06:33 PM »
"So - do we know that the Mach-Lorentz Effect is real?   If so - how does one finance an Edison-like search for the proper materials?"

Whether the M-E is real or not is in the eye of the beholder at this stage of the game.  There is enough data present to say soemthing curious is going on, but not enough high grade order of magnitude above the noise data that has been replicated in mutiple labs to say with certainty that it's for real as advertised.  As to financing, Woodward prefers not to get entangled in such schemes since he likes to work at his own self-financed pace and as his health status permits.  He is still fighting cancer...


Sounds like Bussard, cept at least he got Navy funding. Gah, capital financing isn't a 'scheme'. When it comes to investors and their money, if anything is a scheme is a false claim of scientific fact. Theres still plenty of people who are willing to toss in money even on a very speculative research project.


Mike:

The investors Woodward and I have talked to over the last ten years all wanted a sure-thing, 99% of the pie, and R&D control before they were willing to plunk down significant funding that could pay for our time.  Woodward got very disgusted with the whole lot of them about the time he was diagnosed with lung cancer a few years back now, so he just stopped looking.  It didnít help either that we kept running over IEDs in the M-E R&D road like the just discovered dielectric E-field shielding effect either.  My viewpoint on this fund raising business is that when the first G/I test article can float, or at the very least push itself across an air hockey table as a self contained propulsion unit, is the time when we start back up asking for investors, but not until then.
Star-Drive

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #689 on: 01/07/2010 06:58 AM »
"So - do we know that the Mach-Lorentz Effect is real?   If so - how does one finance an Edison-like search for the proper materials?"

Whether the M-E is real or not is in the eye of the beholder at this stage of the game.  There is enough data present to say soemthing curious is going on, but not enough high grade order of magnitude above the noise data that has been replicated in mutiple labs to say with certainty that it's for real as advertised.  As to financing, Woodward prefers not to get entangled in such schemes since he likes to work at his own self-financed pace and as his health status permits.  He is still fighting cancer...


Sounds like Bussard, cept at least he got Navy funding. Gah, capital financing isn't a 'scheme'. When it comes to investors and their money, if anything is a scheme is a false claim of scientific fact. Theres still plenty of people who are willing to toss in money even on a very speculative research project.


Mike:

The investors Woodward and I have talked to over the last ten years all wanted a sure-thing, 99% of the pie, and R&D control before they were willing to plunk down significant funding that could pay for our time.  Woodward got very disgusted with the whole lot of them about the time he was diagnosed with lung cancer a few years back now, so he just stopped looking.  It didnít help either that we kept running over IEDs in the M-E R&D road like the just discovered dielectric E-field shielding effect either.  My viewpoint on this fund raising business is that when the first G/I test article can float, or at the very least push itself across an air hockey table as a self contained propulsion unit, is the time when we start back up asking for investors, but not until then.


Well I have to say that whoever you guys talked to were scam artists, cause I've never seen that sort of a deal in any of the VC stuff I've done. Investors typically get 10-40% of the stock in the company depending on various factors. The only time I've seen a case of more than that was when Shultz needed 50 million to go from 5 Starbucks stores to 250, the guy who backed him (who was a friend of mine) basically took over the whole company and Shultz had to buy it back from him over 5 years with the success of the company.

In the case of this, if Woodward can do enough to get a patent before getting investors, then the patent is sufficient tangible assets to justify him keeping majority control of the company.
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 hec031

  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #690 on: 01/10/2010 04:29 AM »
"So - do we know that the Mach-Lorentz Effect is real?   If so - how does one finance an Edison-like search for the proper materials?"

Whether the M-E is real or not is in the eye of the beholder at this stage of the game.  There is enough data present to say soemthing curious is going on, but not enough high grade order of magnitude above the noise data that has been replicated in mutiple labs to say with certainty that it's for real as advertised.  As to financing, Woodward prefers not to get entangled in such schemes since he likes to work at his own self-financed pace and as his health status permits.  He is still fighting cancer...


Sounds like Bussard, cept at least he got Navy funding. Gah, capital financing isn't a 'scheme'. When it comes to investors and their money, if anything is a scheme is a false claim of scientific fact. Theres still plenty of people who are willing to toss in money even on a very speculative research project.


Mike:

The investors Woodward and I have talked to over the last ten years all wanted a sure-thing, 99% of the pie, and R&D control before they were willing to plunk down significant funding that could pay for our time.  Woodward got very disgusted with the whole lot of them about the time he was diagnosed with lung cancer a few years back now, so he just stopped looking.  It didnít help either that we kept running over IEDs in the M-E R&D road like the just discovered dielectric E-field shielding effect either.  My viewpoint on this fund raising business is that when the first G/I test article can float, or at the very least push itself across an air hockey table as a self contained propulsion unit, is the time when we start back up asking for investors, but not until then.


Well I have to say that whoever you guys talked to were scam artists, cause I've never seen that sort of a deal in any of the VC stuff I've done. Investors typically get 10-40% of the stock in the company depending on various factors. The only time I've seen a case of more than that was when Shultz needed 50 million to go from 5 Starbucks stores to 250, the guy who backed him (who was a friend of mine) basically took over the whole company and Shultz had to buy it back from him over 5 years with the success of the company.

In the case of this, if Woodward can do enough to get a patent before getting investors, then the patent is sufficient tangible assets to justify him keeping majority control of the company.

Finding private funding for what Venture capitalist would certainly see as speculative science is next to impossible. Despite common belief Venture capitalist do not usually fund fundamental research efforts. Fundamental research is usually funded at a self or government grant level. This can and usually includes Angel investment usually small amounts and up to $2-3 Million, when youíve reached this level you are now ready for Venture capital and by then itís assumed you are ready for initial product development and marketing.

I think one of the issues you guys are missing is that Woodwardís device is not the only propellantless propulsion effort currently being investigated and some are even modestly funded. Itís a very quiet field of interest and you have to know one of its gate keepers to get funded. Still there is a healthy amount of work going on in this field of research. No winners yet, but some research seems promising.

In fact sometimes funding is staring you in the face, but you have to know how to read between the lines of a solicitation.

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #691 on: 01/10/2010 05:49 AM »

In fact sometimes funding is staring you in the face, but you have to know how to read between the lines of a solicitation.


do you have a link etc? this is curious.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline mboeller

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #692 on: 01/10/2010 06:59 AM »

I think one of the issues you guys are missing is that Woodward’s device is not the only propellantless propulsion effort currently being investigated and some are even modestly funded.

Can you give examples?

Offline hec031

  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #693 on: 01/10/2010 12:49 PM »

In fact sometimes funding is staring you in the face, but you have to know how to read between the lines of a solicitation.


do you have a link etc? this is curious.

I know this is going to sound strange, but there are unwritten rules and etiquette, so while I can hint in what direction to look, I would be crossing the line if I gave you the exact link.

I will suggest that you read solicitations carefully and remember that the DoD has a pre-solicitation period of 30 days when you can talk to a project manager about their solicitation directly. The solicitation is always a very condensed version of what the project manager is looking for. Itís a minimum request and you need to ask them what they are looking for? Some solicitations are very broad, thatís how this kind of research gets funded.  SBIRís are the least scrutinized way these kinds of project can get significant funding. There are other mechanism, like subcontracting under related subject matter. This is how most fringe research is initially funded.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #694 on: 01/11/2010 03:35 AM »

In fact sometimes funding is staring you in the face, but you have to know how to read between the lines of a solicitation.


do you have a link etc? this is curious.

I know this is going to sound strange, but there are unwritten rules and etiquette, so while I can hint in what direction to look, I would be crossing the line if I gave you the exact link.

I will suggest that you read solicitations carefully and remember that the DoD has a pre-solicitation period of 30 days when you can talk to a project manager about their solicitation directly. The solicitation is always a very condensed version of what the project manager is looking for. Itís a minimum request and you need to ask them what they are looking for? Some solicitations are very broad, thatís how this kind of research gets funded.  SBIRís are the least scrutinized way these kinds of project can get significant funding. There are other mechanism, like subcontracting under related subject matter. This is how most fringe research is initially funded.


Hec031:

Thanks for the funding hints!  However we've been through that barn several times and we where shot down in the final evaluations for multiple USAF and DARPA applications.  Perhaps we got discouraged a little too easily, but it sure gets old after awhile being told that your data means nothing...
« Last Edit: 01/11/2010 03:36 AM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline hec031

  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #695 on: 01/11/2010 11:37 AM »

In fact sometimes funding is staring you in the face, but you have to know how to read between the lines of a solicitation.


do you have a link etc? this is curious.

I know this is going to sound strange, but there are unwritten rules and etiquette, so while I can hint in what direction to look, I would be crossing the line if I gave you the exact link.

I will suggest that you read solicitations carefully and remember that the DoD has a pre-solicitation period of 30 days when you can talk to a project manager about their solicitation directly. The solicitation is always a very condensed version of what the project manager is looking for. Itís a minimum request and you need to ask them what they are looking for? Some solicitations are very broad, thatís how this kind of research gets funded.  SBIRís are the least scrutinized way these kinds of project can get significant funding. There are other mechanism, like subcontracting under related subject matter. This is how most fringe research is initially funded.


Hec031:

Thanks for the funding hints!  However we've been through that barn several times and we where shot down in the final evaluations for multiple USAF and DARPA applications.  Perhaps we got discouraged a little too easily, but it sure gets old after awhile being told that your data means nothing...

I've had the same kind of experiences and the only thing I can say about that is that not all project managers are the same. Just donít give up because obviously there is no clear winning concept yet.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #696 on: 01/12/2010 02:52 AM »

In fact sometimes funding is staring you in the face, but you have to know how to read between the lines of a solicitation.


do you have a link etc? this is curious.

I know this is going to sound strange, but there are unwritten rules and etiquette, so while I can hint in what direction to look, I would be crossing the line if I gave you the exact link.

I will suggest that you read solicitations carefully and remember that the DoD has a pre-solicitation period of 30 days when you can talk to a project manager about their solicitation directly. The solicitation is always a very condensed version of what the project manager is looking for. Itís a minimum request and you need to ask them what they are looking for? Some solicitations are very broad, thatís how this kind of research gets funded.  SBIRís are the least scrutinized way these kinds of project can get significant funding. There are other mechanism, like subcontracting under related subject matter. This is how most fringe research is initially funded.

I havent done any contract solicitation proposals in over a decade, do you have links for people to start researching pre-solicitation stuff?
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 kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #697 on: 01/12/2010 03:10 AM »
One of the least considered, yet most common, reasons for people to shoot down funding for projects is because there is already funding in that field going to someone else.

When a few teams are being ignored, sometimes it is because they were simply not the first to chase funding.

For a practical example, consider that DOE refuses to fund any work on the Polywell because ITER is gobbling up all the funding in that entire field.

This is precisely the same as what is happening in this field too.

Just because you don't hear about the funding, doesn't mean it isn't there.   DoD has many projects which you don't usually hear about.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 01/12/2010 03:15 AM by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Eric_S

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #698 on: 01/12/2010 06:39 PM »
Speaking of something else than Woodward drives, look what I stumbled upon.

Link.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #699 on: 01/12/2010 06:58 PM »
Speaking of something else than Woodward drives, look what I stumbled upon.

Link.


Ref my comments in this thread or the one started by G/I Thruster on Dr. Harold (Sonny) White's Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation / Hydrodynamic (QVF/MHD) work.  Several QVF based prototypes are currently under construction or being tested at the moment in my dinning room.  In my opinion Woodward's and White's approaches to propellantless propulsion are just flip sides of the same GRT/QM reality.
« Last Edit: 01/12/2010 06:59 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Tags: