### Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 666390 times)

#### GreenGlow

• Member
• Posts: 14
• gone fishing
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #800 on: 05/20/2010 05:05 PM »
Again, I thought it's like mlorrey said, where the mass-energy sum on one part of the reciprocating oscillation stroke is different than the mass-energy sum on the other part of the stroke, so that the resulting imbalance leads to net momentum change.

So if you were throwing away a part of the mass during 1/2 of the cycle you would generate thrust.  I can see how that would work!  What is a "mass-energy sum"?  How can you add two different quantities (Kg and N-M).  Do you really mean Mass X energy?  No, that can't be it because kinetic energy = 1/2MV^2 so Mass X energy would be 1/2M^2V^2 (?)  What part of this am I missing?

#### Robotbeat

• Senior Member
• Posts: 26898
• Minnesota
• Liked: 6795
• Likes Given: 4816
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #801 on: 05/20/2010 05:14 PM »
Again, I thought it's like mlorrey said, where the mass-energy sum on one part of the reciprocating oscillation stroke is different than the mass-energy sum on the other part of the stroke, so that the resulting imbalance leads to net momentum change.

So if you were throwing away a part of the mass during 1/2 of the cycle you would generate thrust.  I can see how that would work!  What is a "mass-energy sum"?  How can you add two different quantities (Kg and N-M).  Do you really mean Mass X energy?  No, that can't be it because kinetic energy = 1/2MV^2 so Mass X energy would be 1/2M^2V^2 (?)  What part of this am I missing?
E=m*c^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

Mass and energy are the same.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

#### GreenGlow

• Member
• Posts: 14
• gone fishing
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #802 on: 05/20/2010 08:42 PM »
Quote
E=m*c^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

Mass and energy are the same.

Mass and energy are equivalent when you have the capability of fusing atoms.  Where does that occur in Woodward's device?   The OP stated something along the lines of "well we can just add mass and energy ..."  I asked "how is that done?"  In a nuclear fusion reaction mass is combined with energy being produced as mass is converted into energy.   Woodward is a phony.  He was been debunked a long time ago.

#### Robotbeat

• Senior Member
• Posts: 26898
• Minnesota
• Liked: 6795
• Likes Given: 4816
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #803 on: 05/20/2010 08:46 PM »
Quote
E=m*c^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

Mass and energy are the same.

Mass and energy are equivalent when you have the capability of fusing atoms.  Where does that occur in Woodward's device?   The OP stated something along the lines of "well we can just add mass and energy ..."  I asked "how is that done?"  In a nuclear fusion reaction mass is combined with energy being produced as mass is converted into energy.   Woodward is a phony.  He was been debunked a long time ago.
I don't disagree with you.
« Last Edit: 05/20/2010 08:47 PM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

#### 93143

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3039
• Liked: 292
• Likes Given: 1
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #804 on: 05/20/2010 08:59 PM »
Mass and energy are equivalent when you have the capability of fusing atoms.  Where does that occur in Woodward's device?  ...  In a nuclear fusion reaction mass is combined with energy being produced as mass is converted into energy.

You've misunderstood.  Matter and energy are the same thing.  The mass that's "converted into energy" in a nuclear reaction is actually nuclear binding energy, that typically comes off as kinetic energy in the reaction products (or sometimes as one or more photons - which is really the same thing; a photon is just a packet of kinetic energy with no rest mass...).  Other forms of what we would consider energy have mass too - even a baseball has (slightly) more apparent mass after being thrown than before (from the perspective of the pitcher, of course).  Even the rest mass of an elementary particle is a form of energy.

Quote
The OP stated something along the lines of "well we can just add mass and energy ..."  I asked "how is that done?"

Actually I was under the impression that the transient inertial mass fluctuation in a Mach-effect device was supposed to be separate from the E/c^2 term and much larger.  The reason it hasn't been experimentally identified before is said to be that in ordinary circumstances it either nulls out over observational timescales or isn't large enough to detect, depending on the circumstances.  This is also why it's so difficult to harness effectively.

Quote
Woodward is a phony.  He was been debunked a long time ago.

Back that up.

He might be a "phony".  But from what I've seen it's very unlikely.  He's far more likely to simply be honestly wrong.  In fact, I think it's far more likely that he's right than that he's engaged in any kind of deliberate deception.

As for "debunked", I haven't seen anything remotely conclusive from anybody.  Have you?  If so, where?
« Last Edit: 05/20/2010 10:10 PM by 93143 »

#### Robotbeat

• Senior Member
• Posts: 26898
• Minnesota
• Liked: 6795
• Likes Given: 4816
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #805 on: 05/20/2010 09:34 PM »
...He's far more likely to simply be honestly wrong. ...
I agree with that, too. I don't think he's intentionally defrauding anyone. I think it's partly wishful thinking.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

#### GreenGlow

• Member
• Posts: 14
• gone fishing
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #806 on: 05/21/2010 03:50 AM »
Quote
As for "debunked", I haven't seen anything remotely conclusive from anybody.  Have you?  If so, where?

I may have gotten Woodward's idea mixed up with the EMDrive, since they are both bogus.  Anyway here is a good article about the EMdrive-

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf

Maybe you can point me to something that purports to show that Woodward's idea is not bogus.   You know there are a lot of these "gamechanging" ideas around.  Problem is none of them ever pan out.   The first thing you have to do if you want to make any progress is to become very critical.  If you accept someones' fantastic assertions without proof, that makes you the bigger fool.

« Last Edit: 05/21/2010 03:52 AM by GreenGlow »

#### Cinder

• Full Member
• Posts: 563
• Liked: 50
• Likes Given: 184
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #807 on: 05/21/2010 05:18 AM »
Woodward is a fraud because M-E hypothesis is wrong because so many other left field hypotheses like EM never panned out?  That's not critical, it's a shoddily built series of leaps of guilt by association and dogma.

Why bring up something like EMdrive when Woodward's laid out the hypothesis in numerous papers?  Why not simply show where and how his math is wrong, or that he mistook Sciama and others' meaning?

Where is the evidence that Woodward's idea is bogus, other than appeals to tradition or authority?
« Last Edit: 05/21/2010 05:19 AM by Cinder »
The pork must flow.

#### GreenGlow

• Member
• Posts: 14
• gone fishing
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #808 on: 05/21/2010 07:09 AM »
Unfortunately for you that isn't how science works.  You have to prove a theory is valid and allow others to replicate your results before you can claim it is true.   Until you can do that any of these far-out theories are considered bogus.  Where is the evidence his theory is valid?  If his ideas are valid why isn't he flying a spaceship?  If I tell you the sky is green are you going to believe me just because I said it?   The fact is there are a lot of lunatics claiming all kinds effects that violate the laws of physics.  Some genuinely believe they are right but are simply ignorant of the laws of physics.  Others are charlatons trying to dupe people into investing in their idea.
JUST IN>>   I read over Woodward's paper just now.   It requires an "adjustment" to the laws of physics.   There are a lot of other neat things you can do if we can just "think outside the box" this way.   Other researchers have tried to replicate his results but have been unsuccessful.  From their results it appears his net thrust is indistinguishable from  thermal noise.   So compare the time-line of his work with known breakthroughs - Maiman's laser, high temp superconductors, etc.  By now others would have replicated his results if there was anything to it.   I don't need to prove his idea is bogus because I know it is.  You need to prove his idea is not if you want to convince me otherwise.
« Last Edit: 05/21/2010 07:56 AM by GreenGlow »

#### Cinder

• Full Member
• Posts: 563
• Liked: 50
• Likes Given: 184
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #809 on: 05/21/2010 11:01 AM »
Unfortunately for you
For me?  I have no stake in Woodward's work.
Quote
You have to prove a theory is valid and allow others to replicate your results before you can claim it is true.
Hypothesis.  If it's a theory it's already got a minimum of proving work done. The flip side of that coin is that you can't dismiss something merely because you don't like it.  It has to have outstanding flaws to be dismissed that way.  What are those obvious flaws with Woodward's hypothesis?  IIRC Sciama wasn't the only one whose work is cited by Woodward.  And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Einstein (or Feynman?  One of those guys) at least at one point posit that inertia has some electromagnetic element? Is Woodward misconstruing or misrepresenting Sciama's and Mach's assertions?
Quote
Until you can do that any of these far-out theories are considered bogus.
Long story short: until an internally consistent hypothesis has practical evidence consistent with its predictions, it's got no credibility but can't be definitively ruled out either.  Not unless some known evidence contradicts said hypothesis.
Quote
Where is the evidence his theory is valid?  If his ideas are valid why isn't he flying a spaceship?
Is there no precedent for hypotheses taking a long time to be proven right?  If man is meant to fly, why hasn't he always flown?  This is a flawed argument.
Quote
If I tell you the sky is green are you going to believe me just because I said it?
No, but I couldn't show it false till I went out and looked.  Whether or not I estimate that the probability that it's gone green since I last looked is infinitesimal.
Quote
The fact is there are a lot of lunatics claiming all kinds effects that violate the laws of physics.
Which says nothing about any hypothesis in particular, only a statistical population.
Quote
By now others would have replicated his results if there was anything to it.
Just a general rule of thumb, not at all rigorous scientific method.
Quote
I don't need to prove his idea is bogus because I know it is.
And I or anyone else wanting rigorous scientific certainty can't believe you till you demonstrate it..  See how that works?
Quote
You need to prove his idea is not if you want to convince me otherwise.
It makes no difference to me whether you believe it or not.  And the only thing that matters in the big picture is the people involved who'll either substantiate or rule out, experimentally or theoretically.  If you refuse to be involved this way, e.g. by precisely showing from A to Z how it's bogus, then your unsubstantiated opinion is irrelevant.  I certainly don't take Woodward or March or anyone for granted, but I'll take even less seriously someone who won't even show their work as Woodward and March and others have; regardless if it's flawed.

Talk is cheap.
The pork must flow.

#### Nathan

• Member
• Full Member
• Posts: 701
• Sydney
• Liked: 13
• Likes Given: 2
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #810 on: 05/21/2010 12:29 PM »
The EmDrive is progressing. The below document goes into more details of demonstration flights and early applications

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2009/10/emdrive-ceas-2009-paper.doc
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

#### sanman

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3759
• Liked: 472
• Likes Given: 7
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #811 on: 05/21/2010 03:33 PM »
Quote
E=m*c^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

Mass and energy are the same.

Mass and energy are equivalent when you have the capability of fusing atoms.  Where does that occur in Woodward's device?   The OP stated something along the lines of "well we can just add mass and energy ..."  I asked "how is that done?"  In a nuclear fusion reaction mass is combined with energy being produced as mass is converted into energy.   Woodward is a phony.  He was been debunked a long time ago.

Hiya,

My understanding is that energy has mass.

Please differentiate between the words "matter" and "mass".
Energy is not matter, but energy has mass.
Energy and matter are different, but mass is a property of both.

It is commonly/intuitively known that matter has mass, but the fact that energy has mass is mainly only noticed and considered by physicists.

For example, suppose you have equal amounts of matter and anti-matter inside some container, then their total mass will have some inertia.
If you anihilate the matter with the anti-matter, their combined mass is converted entirely into energy. Suppose this anihilation occurs inside the container so that the resulting X-rays/energy are prevented from escaping - to the rest of the universe outside that container, there would be no apparent change in the inertial mass before the anihilation and after the anihilation (the conversion of the matter into the energy).

So energy and matter are different forms of the same thing, and both can have inertial mass. A photon has mass due to its energy, even though that photon is pure energy, having a hypothetical "rest mass" of zero.

And yet energy is more "volatile" than matter - ie. we can shift energy around much more easily than we can shift matter.
What I'd like to know is - how can we exploit this fact for useful purposes?
« Last Edit: 05/21/2010 04:05 PM by sanman »

#### GreenGlow

• Member
• Posts: 14
• gone fishing
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #812 on: 05/21/2010 04:09 PM »
Thruster ideas that require an adjustment to the laws of physics are science fiction.   A few years ago NASA blew away a few million dollars on their Breakthrough Physics Program (BPP).  NASA has to do this because their mission requires investing in extremely risky ideas.  As expected though all that came of this program was a lot of re-hashed science fiction.  Bidfield-Brown electrostatic thrusters, Mach effect, Alcuibre (sp?) drives, etc, etc.   When you read these papers they all have the required amount of math - lots of partial derivatives, wave functions, -it's all there.  The problem is that the underlying assumptions are WRONG.   Dressing up bad science with lots of complicated math does not make the bad science correct.   All of this defective science has been bouncing around since BPP ended.   Any serious researcher can see it is just science fiction.  Maybe sometime in the future some of it may work, but no-one knows how that will happen now.
If you want to invent something that will change how we go into space I think you have to aim for something that is achievable, given the generally accepted laws of physics.   If you are really interested in this field then stop yammering about dead-end non-scientific research and start doing something.  Build a lab in your garage.  Buy some accelerometers.  Do some experiments and be critical of the results.  Then, maybe after 5-10 years of that you may have something to talk about.  If you are really lucky you will have something but you won't talk about it.
« Last Edit: 05/21/2010 04:11 PM by GreenGlow »

#### cuddihy

• Full Member
• Posts: 795
• Liked: 143
• Likes Given: 142
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #813 on: 05/21/2010 04:36 PM »
Thruster ideas that require an adjustment to the laws of physics are science fiction.   A few years ago NASA blew away a few million dollars on their Breakthrough Physics Program (BPP).  NASA has to do this because their mission requires investing in extremely risky ideas.  As expected though all that came of this program was a lot of re-hashed science fiction.  Bidfield-Brown electrostatic thrusters, Mach effect, Alcuibre (sp?) drives, etc, etc.   When you read these papers they all have the required amount of math - lots of partial derivatives, wave functions, -it's all there.  The problem is that the underlying assumptions are WRONG.   Dressing up bad science with lots of complicated math does not make the bad science correct.   All of this defective science has been bouncing around since BPP ended.   Any serious researcher can see it is just science fiction.  Maybe sometime in the future some of it may work, but no-one knows how that will happen now.
If you want to invent something that will change how we go into space I think you have to aim for something that is achievable, given the generally accepted laws of physics.   If you are really interested in this field then stop yammering about dead-end non-scientific research and start doing something.  Build a lab in your garage.  Buy some accelerometers.  Do some experiments and be critical of the results.  Then, maybe after 5-10 years of that you may have something to talk about.  If you are really lucky you will have something but you won't talk about it.

Alcubierre.

The "generally accepted laws of physics" as you apparently define them cannot change the way we go into space. That's the tyranny of mass fraction.

As for your generous invitation to do something more than just talk, how about *you* put up or shut up first.

You're the one reading through and commenting on a thread titled "Propellantless Field Propulsion and application." And since you apparently have nothing other than baseless opinion to sling around, I'd say that makes you the one "yammering."

So why don't you build a replica of Woodward's experiment in your garage and show that he's wrong? Look at the ORNL paper critically and see if you can find the errors.

Then show how ORNLs results are still valid.
« Last Edit: 05/21/2010 04:42 PM by cuddihy »

#### Robotbeat

• Senior Member
• Posts: 26898
• Minnesota
• Liked: 6795
• Likes Given: 4816
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #814 on: 05/21/2010 04:48 PM »
Thruster ideas that require an adjustment to the laws of physics are science fiction.   A few years ago NASA blew away a few million dollars on their Breakthrough Physics Program (BPP).  NASA has to do this because their mission requires investing in extremely risky ideas.  As expected though all that came of this program was a lot of re-hashed science fiction.  Bidfield-Brown electrostatic thrusters, Mach effect, Alcuibre (sp?) drives, etc, etc.   When you read these papers they all have the required amount of math - lots of partial derivatives, wave functions, -it's all there.  The problem is that the underlying assumptions are WRONG.   Dressing up bad science with lots of complicated math does not make the bad science correct.   All of this defective science has been bouncing around since BPP ended.   Any serious researcher can see it is just science fiction.  Maybe sometime in the future some of it may work, but no-one knows how that will happen now.
If you want to invent something that will change how we go into space I think you have to aim for something that is achievable, given the generally accepted laws of physics.   If you are really interested in this field then stop yammering about dead-end non-scientific research and start doing something.  Build a lab in your garage.  Buy some accelerometers.  Do some experiments and be critical of the results.  Then, maybe after 5-10 years of that you may have something to talk about.  If you are really lucky you will have something but you won't talk about it.

Alcubierre.

The "generally accepted laws of physics" as you apparently define them cannot change the way we go into space. That's the tyranny of mass fraction.
There are plenty of ways to get into orbit that could be "cheap" and could change the way we get into orbit. None of them to the extent that these fantasy drives could, but certainly a lot cheaper than we do it now.

The biggest driver for these things to happen is just to have a really, really good reason for putting hundreds of thousands of tons into orbit every year. That will drive super-HLV-sized RLVs (1000+ tons to orbit at a time, one launch per day at multiple launch sites). On a large enough scale, it may drive the price to orbit to near the cost of fuel, which isn't that bad... \$10 or \$20 per kilogram-to-LEO could be the cost with known physics (though not with known economics or known engineering, etc).

I don't think we'll see that number in our lifetime or the lifetime of our children, but it's possible.

And besides, physics isn't something you can just "overthrow" if you don't like it.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

#### GreenGlow

• Member
• Posts: 14
• gone fishing
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #815 on: 05/21/2010 04:57 PM »
Quote
As for your generous invitation to do something more than just talk, how about *you* put up or shut up first.

My invitation is for others like you to do something more than talk.  I have been dabbling in field propulsion research for almost 10 years now.  My garage is filled with curiosities that didn't work.  If I had your naivite I would still be trying to make my first idea work.

Quote
So why don't you build a replica of Woodward's experiment in your garage and show that he's wrong? Look at the ORNL paper critically and see if you can find the errors.

Then show how ORNLs results are still valid.

I am not interested in re-testing failed ideas.  That's a .01% proposition.  The error is in the initial assumption Woodward and the other lunatics like him start with.   It is fringe science pure and simple.
« Last Edit: 05/21/2010 05:05 PM by GreenGlow »

#### MP99

##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #816 on: 05/21/2010 05:03 PM »
If I tell you the sky is green are you going to believe me just because I said it?   The fact is there are a lot of lunatics claiming all kinds effects that violate the laws of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_flash

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040321.html

Also worth googling about green rays.

cheers, Martin

#### GreenGlow

• Member
• Posts: 14
• gone fishing
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #817 on: 05/21/2010 05:07 PM »
If I tell you the sky is green are you going to believe me just because I said it?   The fact is there are a lot of lunatics claiming all kinds effects that violate the laws of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_flash

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040321.html

Also worth googling about green rays.

cheers, Martin

Yes I have seen the green flash.  But one green flash does not make the whole sky green.

#### cuddihy

• Full Member
• Posts: 795
• Liked: 143
• Likes Given: 142
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #818 on: 05/21/2010 07:31 PM »
Quote
As for your generous invitation to do something more than just talk, how about *you* put up or shut up first.

My invitation is for others like you to do something more than talk.  I have been dabbling in field propulsion research for almost 10 years now.  My garage is filled with curiosities that didn't work.  If I had your naivite I would still be trying to make my first idea work.

Quote
So why don't you build a replica of Woodward's experiment in your garage and show that he's wrong? Look at the ORNL paper critically and see if you can find the errors.

Then show how ORNLs results are still valid.

I am not interested in re-testing failed ideas.  That's a .01% proposition.  The error is in the initial assumption Woodward and the other lunatics like him start with.   It is fringe science pure and simple.

in that case since you've done so much work in the field I'm sure you must be very knowledgeable. Would you mind pointing out what the erroneous assumption is in Woodward's work that makes it fringe?

I'm all about determining correct assumptions, not discarding a theory because the result seems incredible.

#### GreenGlow

• Member
• Posts: 14
• gone fishing
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #819 on: 05/21/2010 08:14 PM »
Quote
in that case since you've done so much work in the field I'm sure you must be very knowledgeable. Would you mind pointing out what the erroneous assumption is in Woodward's work that makes it fringe?

I'm all about determining correct assumptions, not discarding a theory because the result seems incredible.

Besides the fact that Woodward is claiming a perpetual motion machine, his use of Sciama's formulation of Mach's principle is not in agreement with most scientists.   This is not an area that I am an expert in.  More knowledgeable people than I have cast doubt on it.   I am not interested in activities that require the generally accepted laws of physics be changed.  That falls under the realm of science fiction.
You are welcome to delude yourself further.
« Last Edit: 05/21/2010 08:15 PM by GreenGlow »

Tags: