Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 664821 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #860 on: 08/03/2010 02:41 PM »
...
Readable layman take on the paper:
  http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=13651

I read that.  I don't even qualify as a layman!  There seems to be a difference between mass and inertia.  Speaking as a sub-layman (a step above Cro-Magnon), what the heck are we pushing against?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #861 on: 08/03/2010 03:45 PM »
...
Readable layman take on the paper:
  http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=13651
I read that.  I don't even qualify as a layman!  There seems to be a difference between mass and inertia.  Speaking as a sub-layman (a step above Cro-Magnon), what the heck are we pushing against?

I believe Star-Drive and Dr. Woodward would tell you that you're pushing against the combined gravitational attraction of the rest of the universe. Other physicists don't go that far (yet), but are now simply theorizing on the differences between gravitational and inertial mass.

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Liked: 461
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #862 on: 08/03/2010 03:59 PM »
I believe that the only thing available to push against is the Dynamic Vacuum, or Quantum Foam.

After all, when any particle or object exhibits a DeBroglie wavelength, then what is pushing against it? Space itself.

Offline cgrunska

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Austin Tx
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #863 on: 08/03/2010 04:40 PM »
fantastic updates all around

thank you!
i love this topic

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #864 on: 08/03/2010 05:20 PM »
I can say this: "you're pushing against the combined gravitational attraction of the rest of the universe", just as easily as the next guy.  I just can't actually push on it, nor quite understand the subtleties of that paper I mentioned.  That's ok.  Carry on.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline cgrunska

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Austin Tx
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #865 on: 08/03/2010 06:31 PM »
any new news for this?
anything on the polywell fusion reactor?

Not really, Woodward is buying/building a new power supply last I heard.

Nebel's polywell team isn't due to announce anything until some time between November of this year and May of next year. However, the chief of the Office of Naval Research recently gave a presentation to high level military brass about future naval power, propulsion, and weaponry, and among other things, talked briefly about Polywell remaining on track and giving positive results so far and will be able to meet the Navy's needs for power for its future railgun and other energy weaponry needs. So this is encouraging even if there's no science released as of yet.

quick question, do you have any citation on the polywell thing, or was it just something you heard through peers?

Offline GraphGuy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 293
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #866 on: 08/03/2010 09:47 PM »
any new news for this?
anything on the polywell fusion reactor?

Not really, Woodward is buying/building a new power supply last I heard.

Nebel's polywell team isn't due to announce anything until some time between November of this year and May of next year. However, the chief of the Office of Naval Research recently gave a presentation to high level military brass about future naval power, propulsion, and weaponry, and among other things, talked briefly about Polywell remaining on track and giving positive results so far and will be able to meet the Navy's needs for power for its future railgun and other energy weaponry needs. So this is encouraging even if there's no science released as of yet.

quick question, do you have any citation on the polywell thing, or was it just something you heard through peers?

Nebel and the Polywell folk aren't talking.  Go poke around the focus fusion site instead as they are getting close to proton+Boron fusion and they can talk about it.  http://focusfusion.org/

Edit:
You can find reference to the Naval presentation at talk-polywell.org but there are no concrete details because Polywell is a naval project and very much subject to press/data embargo.  I didn't mean to imply that what was said about Polywell wasn't actually said, it was.  I don't know if the Navy is blowing smoke but the Navy has a pretty good track record over the last 60 years of pushing technology into its warships so I grant them some credibility on such fantastic claims.
« Last Edit: 08/03/2010 10:07 PM by GraphGuy »

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #867 on: 08/04/2010 01:26 AM »
I can say this: "you're pushing against the combined gravitational attraction of the rest of the universe", just as easily as the next guy.  I just can't actually push on it, nor quite understand the subtleties of that paper I mentioned.  That's ok.  Carry on.

Okay, here's a simplification:

Imagine you are an egg inside a geodesic sphere of n facets. There are rubber bands connected to you (the egg) and every vertex of the n-geodesic (which represents the causally linked observable universe), holding you in tension in the center of the sphere. Each rubber band represents the gravitational attraction of some mass out there in the universe to you. Because you are held in tension between all of these masses, any time you try to move, there is a resistance from the opposite direction against you accelerating too quickly in that direction. The more you try to accelerate, the greater the elastic resistance.

Understand?

Now, imagine you, the egg, are falling down the event horizon of a black hole. The sphere around you is significantly distorted, with one big mass on one side with a very strong elastic band connecting you to it, and the rest of the universe distorted into a teardrop shape that comes to a point at the black hole. Eventually it is just a tube with the black hole at one end and the universe at the other.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2010 01:32 AM by mlorrey »
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #868 on: 08/04/2010 03:16 PM »
Quote
Imagine you are an egg inside a geodesic sphere of n facets....
That was great imagery, and seriously, I appreciate your attempt to explain.  I have read this entire thread from top to bottom, and some time ago, I rephrased my understanding of the "push-heavy, pull-light" analogy, and my feelings were hurt when an avatar made fun of my explanation.  So I had a good cry, played my favorite misoganystic rap record, and moved on.

I've been doing a good bit of reading, and am slowly brushing up on calculus.  I've read Sciama's Foundations of General Relativity and other related works, including Woodward's various published papers.  I've also read a number of the other papers posted here.  So I continue my struggle.  Just so ya know.

There is a difference between inertia and mass, but it is not well understood.  A practical application of such an intimate understanding would be the drive system that Paul March is experimenting with, and the benefits of such a drive are well known, even as the mechanics of the application remain unknown.  From the "layman's" article:

Non-baryonic (dark) matter has not yet been found; it's discovery is crucial to proving aspects of inertial theory, as is the observation and full understanding of dark energy.  Mike McCulloch is studying the Pioneer anomaly, particularly in regard to the seeming existence of, or the possibility that, "inertial mass, in fact, changes slightly under certain conditions".  If the LHC can discover the Higgs field, this understanding will shed light on the "process known as spontaneous symmetry breaking", which might explain how this field "bestows mass upon matter". 

Even tho this idea is widely accepted, others are looking at the intertia problem from a different viewpoint.  "One paper, Inertia as a Zero Point Lorentz Force, written in 1994 by Rueda, Puthoff and Haisch (RPH), represents a stalwart effort to model inertia as a back-reaction of matter to the quantum vacuum similar to the Unruh field."  I started Wiki-ing out on Unruh, and found myself gasping for breath.  Continuing with the article, "Wien’s displacement law tells us that, for a given temperature, there will be a dominant wavelength which, via the Unruh effect, is inversely proportional to the acceleration".  More gasping from me, which limits my understanding of the conclusion: "matter’s response to the vacuum is what generates inertia".

But then, McCulloch seems to suggest that, as reported by the author of the article, "as the Pioneer probes depart our solar system they experience a force due to the gravitational attraction of the sun. This force generates an acceleration which, due to its extremely small value, modifies the inertial mass of the pioneer probe. Because of this modification, the Pioneer probes, seemingly now less massive, feel a greater acceleration due to the sun than that predicted by Newtonian mechanics, creating the anomalously large acceleration."

I understand this to mean that the acceleration is in the direction of the sun.  In laymans's terms, the craft is slowing down, as confirmed by Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

"...they are slowing down slightly more than expected. The effect can be modeled as a slight additional acceleration towards the Sun."  What?  the craft is getting lighter, and instead of speeding up, it is slowing down?  No wonder they call it an anomaly!

The article then goes on to discuss what I would call the radius of the universe, R, a value of 10B ly, a size that is 10^60th larger than the Plank scale.  As the universe expands, the CMB gets lower gradually.  It is the fluctuations in that temperature, now thought to be about 2.7º K, which leave clues as to the "physics of the early universe".  I found the imagery of the "low note" of one cycle per universe in this fluctuation to resemble the sound of "OM", but that's just me.

Then the article goes on to exceed my understanding even further, by discussing the various ratios of R to c, finally noticing that c^2/R is about equal to the anomalous Pioneer acceleration.  The article raises tantalizing expectations, but does not offer proof.

The article closes with: "Mike McCulloch, however, is arguably helping to increase momentum within this curious and remarkable area of research".  Ha-ha.  Momentum.  Get it?  No, I don't.  Speaking as a layman.  But I do understand, in general, that physics isn't complete, and I appreciated the opportunity to read the article.

I see that Mike Lorrey has made a comment on that site. 

Paul Titze quotes from Motion Mountain that: "There are many hints that point to an asymmetry in heat radiation emission."  In other words, that the acceleration has other plausible, possible explanations, including the light mill effect.  He suggests looking for simpler means of explanation for this anomalous effect. 

Ron S suggests studying the New Horizons space craft for evidence of a similar effect, but laments that we will have to wait for these details.

Just a quick peek at Woodward's refutation of the ORNL paper.  Woodward: "Alas, in the published versions of the various calculations laid out here and in the Appendixes there were several typographical errors that survived the proofing process."

Howza guy like me, who is trying to understand this stuff, also tasked with finding the errors in the presentations?   One of the first [fingerquote] errors [/fingerquote] that I found was the "sign convention", which I just flat out do not get.  Woodward: "The first “sign convention” is the assumption that inertial reaction forces – and thus the field strength that produces them – should be preceded by a minus sign."  His Appendix B explains this again, and suggests "that other sign conventions introduced below would have to be altered to maintain consistency".  Beyond my capabilities, but what would those equations say under a different sign convention?

Woodward again: "As to the allegation in the press release of the extraction of momentum from the vacuum by application of an alleged Machian effect, no such claim has ever been made. The possible propulsive use of Machian mass fluctuations has nothing whatsoever to do with vacuum effects, either classical or quantum mechanical. Neither does it constitute a fuel-less “rocket”.  What? 

Isn't that what this thread is about?  Propellantless propulsion?  I'm perfectly happy with understanding the Mach effect, even if there are no practical applications.  I thought that the simplest explanation of Paul March's work was that he proposes to convert electrical energy directly into the forward momentum of a given mass, which would be an excellent application, no?

Woodward claims that the term "vacuum" is incorrectly used in the ORNL refutation.  What is the correct term?  Do we get forward momentum?  I don't understand the subtleties here, but Woodward says "...inertial part of the gravitational field transports a momentum flux to (and from) the chiefly most distant matter in the universe..." which seems to me to imply action at a distance.  Other posters in this thread have also complained about action at a distance, because of the intantaneity of that action.  Woodward repeats: "...the momentum flux in the gravinertial field should not act like a propellant in the present [non-relativistic] circumstances".  Which would be the only forces that human travelers could withstand.

Appendix B has some additional explanation, not all of which I understand, but; "Unless the cosmic matter is dominated by substance with “exotic” or negative mass..."  Isn't it thought that cosmic matter is dominated by dark matter?  Does that affect his equations?

Appendix C has some additional info which I just don't get, either: "Now consider two test bodies with identical masses when measured in the same place."  OK.  But then he supposes that phi has two different values in two different labs.  How can that be?  It can't be; Woodward concludes: "we may conclude with certainty that all inertial reaction forces arise exclusively through the gravitational action of all of the matter in the causally connected part of the universe if the principle of relativity and the EP are correct."  Which seems to me to say that gravity fields are equivalent to inertial fields, which is a fundamental equivalence in GRT.

This stuff is fascinating, but difficult.  There went two hours of my life.  I prolly shoulda stuck with "Carry on".
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 856
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #869 on: 08/04/2010 06:28 PM »
John:

"This stuff is fascinating, but difficult.  There went two hours of my life.  I probably should-a stuck with "Carry on"."


I've spent the last 12 years plowing through this M-E and QVF stuff and I’m still just an amateur, but at least I can now follow most of what Woodward is trying to say, for a while at least, until I either use it, or lose it.  In the meanwhile why don't you get on Woodward's e-mail distribution and ask Jim some of your above questions?  Ask Jim to put you on at jfwoodward@juno.com .   I'm sure we will all learn something new about GRT and Mach's principal no matter how dumb the question may sound to yourself.  I know I do every time Woodward starts down explaining something in this business.


"Woodward again: "As to the allegation in the press release of the extraction of momentum from the vacuum by application of an alleged Machian effect, no such claim has ever been made. The possible propulsive use of Machian mass fluctuations has nothing whatsoever to do with vacuum effects, either classical or quantum mechanical. Neither does it constitute a fuel-less “rocket”.  What? 

Isn't that what this thread is about?  Propellantless propulsion?  I'm perfectly happy with understanding the Mach effect, even if there are no practical applications.  I thought that the simplest explanation of Paul March's work was that he proposes to convert electrical energy directly into the forward momentum of a given mass, which would be an excellent application, no?"


Now here we are into semantics.  When Jim says an M-E thruster is not a "fuel-less" thruster, I believe he is referring to two different issues.  The first is the fact that all M-E based devices have to have some minimum amount of propellant or reaction mass to accelerate and decelerate in a cyclic manner, else wise there is no M-E mass fluctuation signal to be acted on by the externally applied force rectification force.  In other words an M-E thruster is best described as a recycled-mass thruster instead of a propellantless thruster. 

The second issue is that all M-E devices require an input of local energy that is needed to accelerate and decelerate the M-E reaction-mass and make up all dissipative energy sinks like friction, etc.  Jim W. takes the conservative view that ALL the kinetic energy gain produced by an M-E thruster has to be supplied by the local power supply in the vehicle in question.  However, Andrew Palfreyman and my self’s analysis of this energy balance issue shows that there may be an additional external energy source being tapped by the M-E thrusters, and we think it may be the average kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules that make up the 13.7 billion light-year radius causally connected universe.  Sonny White on the other hand thinks this external energy source being tapped by these gravinertial (G/I) devices may be the Dark (negative) vacuum energy field that astronomers uncovered over ten years ago now.  We won’t know for sure which approach is more realistic until we make M-E thruster that have thrust levels measured in Newtons instead of milli-Newtons.

That's all for now, (I've got to get back to my day job.), but if we can make these G/I based drives actually work as the M-E and QVF theories say they could work, then cheap access to space and fast interstellar travel for the masses will finally become possible.  To me that goal is more than enough incentive to keep me banging my head against the M-E wall in hope of grabbing this G/I golden ring.  Why?  Because rockets just won't cut it!
Star-Drive

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #870 on: 08/04/2010 06:42 PM »
Paul, thanks for responding.  I just dropped Mr. Woodward a line.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #871 on: 08/05/2010 07:09 PM »

 Jim W. takes the conservative view that ALL the kinetic energy gain produced by an M-E thruster has to be supplied by the local power supply in the vehicle in question.  However, Andrew Palfreyman and my self’s analysis of this energy balance issue shows that there may be an additional external energy source being tapped by the M-E thrusters, and we think it may be the average kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules that make up the 13.7 billion light-year radius causally connected universe.  Sonny White on the other hand thinks this external energy source being tapped by these gravinertial (G/I) devices may be the Dark (negative) vacuum energy field that astronomers uncovered over ten years ago now.  We won’t know for sure which approach is more realistic until we make M-E thruster that have thrust levels measured in Newtons instead of milli-Newtons.


Paul,
Have you and Andres released this analysis? Or is this based on some proprietary data?

Also, wondering how the progress on the improvements to your Excel parametric tool that you've mentioned previously. (i.e. the one that tells you how much thrust you can get for what drive freq, voltage, power).

Thanks!
Tom

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 856
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #872 on: 08/06/2010 05:02 AM »

 Jim W. takes the conservative view that ALL the kinetic energy gain produced by an M-E thruster has to be supplied by the local power supply in the vehicle in question.  However, Andrew Palfreyman and my self’s analysis of this energy balance issue shows that there may be an additional external energy source being tapped by the M-E thrusters, and we think it may be the average kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules that make up the 13.7 billion light-year radius causally connected universe.  Sonny White on the other hand thinks this external energy source being tapped by these gravinertial (G/I) devices may be the Dark (negative) vacuum energy field that astronomers uncovered over ten years ago now.  We won’t know for sure which approach is more realistic until we make M-E thruster that have thrust levels measured in Newtons instead of milli-Newtons.


Paul,
Have you and Andrew released this analysis? Or is this based on some proprietary data?

Also, wondering how the progress on the improvements to your Excel parametric tool that you've mentioned previously. (i.e. the one that tells you how much thrust you can get for what drive freq, voltage, power).

Thanks!
Tom

Tom:

The M-E energy balance analysis came about in a 2006 e-mail exchange with my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper reviewers that included Andrew P. and myself, so it was never published.  If I fish around my e-mail archives from that year I think I can dig it out for your review.  However, it turns around the fact that when the M-E wormhole term starts to be expressed, kinetic energy from the distant active mass in the universe that creates the local cosmological gravitational field, can be locally harvested by any M-E device for use in accelerating it and the vehicle it is attached to.  There is also the possibility about extracting enery from within the lightcone of the local gravitational field by the M-E impulse term that Woodward has not explored very much if at all, but it appears that net energy above and beyond what the local vehicle power supply can provide might also be harvested as well.  This is such a controversial area that we've tended to let it lie low until more data is in hand, but it IS the 800 pound gorilla in the M-E or QVF rooms...

BTW, I also have Sonny's analysis for the QVF version of this energy conservation argument at hand for both the local and warpdrive versions, but alas they are both proprietary data and we need Sonny's approval before I can send it out.  I'll see what I can do about that tomorrow.

As to the latest version of the M-E/QVF spreasheet, I've got it pretty much put to bed now, but it needs some new experimental data to verify its predictions before I claim victory with it.  If it does end up reflecting   reality, and that's a big if, then it becomes a great design tool for building commerical M-E devices.  A design tool I'd be loathed to just give away...
Star-Drive

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #873 on: 08/06/2010 12:53 PM »

The M-E energy balance analysis came about in a 2006 e-mail exchange with my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper reviewers that included Andrew P. and myself, so it was never published.  If I fish around my e-mail archives from that year I think I can dig it out for your review.  However, it turns around the fact that when the M-E wormhole term starts to be expressed, kinetic energy from the distant active mass in the universe that creates the local cosmological gravitational field, can be locally harvested by any M-E device for use in accelerating it and the vehicle it is attached to.  There is also the possibility about extracting enery from within the lightcone of the local gravitational field by the M-E impulse term that Woodward has not explored very much if at all, but it appears that net energy above and beyond what the local vehicle power supply can provide might also be harvested as well.  This is such a controversial area that we've tended to let it lie low until more data is in hand, but it IS the 800 pound gorilla in the M-E or QVF rooms...

BTW, I also have Sonny's analysis for the QVF version of this energy conservation argument at hand for both the local and warpdrive versions, but alas they are both proprietary data and we need Sonny's approval before I can send it out.  I'll see what I can do about that tomorrow.

As to the latest version of the M-E/QVF spreasheet, I've got it pretty much put to bed now, but it needs some new experimental data to verify its predictions before I claim victory with it.  If it does end up reflecting   reality, and that's a big if, then it becomes a great design tool for building commerical M-E devices.  A design tool I'd be loathed to just give away...

Thanks for the response!

Also, I wasn't asking for the tool, I just remembered that you'd discovered a problem & said that it needed to be reworked, so I was more just wondering how the output graphs have changed. Like are the graphs from your last STAIF paper still valid or do they need to be revised to show the correct "sweet spot" for reaching 1g.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #874 on: 08/06/2010 12:55 PM »

The M-E energy balance analysis came about in a 2006 e-mail exchange with my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper reviewers that included Andrew P. and myself, so it was never published.  If I fish around my e-mail archives from that year I think I can dig it out for your review.  However, it turns around the fact that when the M-E wormhole term starts to be expressed, kinetic energy from the distant active mass in the universe that creates the local cosmological gravitational field, can be locally harvested by any M-E device for use in accelerating it and the vehicle it is attached to.  There is also the possibility about extracting enery from within the lightcone of the local gravitational field by the M-E impulse term that Woodward has not explored very much if at all, but it appears that net energy above and beyond what the local vehicle power supply can provide might also be harvested as well.  This is such a controversial area that we've tended to let it lie low until more data is in hand, but it IS the 800 pound gorilla in the M-E or QVF rooms...

BTW, I also have Sonny's analysis for the QVF version of this energy conservation argument at hand for both the local and warpdrive versions, but alas they are both proprietary data and we need Sonny's approval before I can send it out.  I'll see what I can do about that tomorrow.

As to the latest version of the M-E/QVF spreasheet, I've got it pretty much put to bed now, but it needs some new experimental data to verify its predictions before I claim victory with it.  If it does end up reflecting   reality, and that's a big if, then it becomes a great design tool for building commerical M-E devices.  A design tool I'd be loathed to just give away...

Thanks for the response!

Also, I wasn't asking for the tool, I just remembered that you'd discovered a problem & said that it needed to be reworked, so I was more just wondering how the output graphs have changed. Like are the graphs from your last STAIF paper still valid or do they need to be revised to show the correct "sweet spot" for reaching 1N/W.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 856
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #875 on: 08/07/2010 03:59 AM »
Tom:

"...I just remembered that you'd discovered a problem & said that it needed to be reworked, so I was more just wondering how the output graphs have changed. Like are the graphs from your last STAIF paper still valid or do they need to be revised to show the correct "sweet spot" for reaching 1N/W."

That is very much dependent on which model really governs these G/I drives.  Is it Jim's unmodified M-E very non-linear 2nd order differential equation?  Is it White's QVF/MHD ac model?  A hybrid of the two?  Or none of the above??  At this stage of the game, I don't know what the answer is yet, but hopefully the next N4700 cap based MLT test article will start telling us which way is the correct way...
Star-Drive

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #876 on: 09/01/2010 10:22 PM »
How is Dr. Woodward's health condition now?

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 856
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #877 on: 09/02/2010 03:58 AM »
How is Dr. Woodward's health condition now?

Apparently stable, though Jim continues to have go in for biweekly kemo sessions in LA, even when he is living in CO for the summer.
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 856
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #878 on: 09/02/2010 01:52 PM »
Folks:

I've not made much progress on my Mach Effect (M-E) experiments due to my family responsibilities of late, but I’ve had a recent e-mail exchange with Jim Woodward’s M-E group that may be of interest to you.  It started with us reviewing Dr. Woodward’s latest version of his SPESIF-2011 Stargate paper that will be published early next year.  Here is the excerpt from Woodward’s future paper in question:

 “Gravitational potential energy may not be localizable, as required by the EEP, in GRT, but that does NOT mean that gravitational potential energy can be ignored.  Indeed, we find that the total gravitational potential energy, E-grav, of a body with mass m is just:
 
E-grav = m*phi = m*c^2                                (18)
                       
The obvious generalization of this observation is that the masses of material objects in the universe arise because of their gravitational potential energy whose source is the rest of the matter in the universe.  Thus we see that Mach’s principle not only identifies the source of inertial reaction forces as the gravitational action of chiefly distant matter, it also identifies the origin of mass itself as gravitational potential energy.”


I followed up this excerpt with the following three e-mail posts entitled "Mach's Gravitational Potential Energy as the Source of "Atomic" Power":

1.
“As I said this morning, the above excerpt from Jim W.’s 2011 Stargate paper really drives home the point for me that “atomic power” in reality may be the percentage of gravitational potential energy that is converted into kinetic energy of the atomic fragments when combining (fusion) or fracturing (fission) atomic nuclei.  This also points out where most, (sans the M-E wormhole contribution), of the M-E drive’s energy excesses may be coming from, for every time we create a force rectified delta-mass signature, a small amount of this gravitational potential energy could be converted into the net kinetic energy of the M-E drive’s cap-ring.”

2.
“You already know of the ongoing energy & momentum conservation discussion/argument that Jim W., Andrew P., John Cole and I have been having since John C. peered reviewed my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-I paper back in 2006.  Jim W. has always admitted that the Mach-Effect (M-E)’s wormhole term allowed for the possibility of energy and momentum (momenergy) exchanges between the locally accelerated M-E device and the Far Off Active Mass (FOAM) of the causally connected universe.  Well here is a means to balance the momenergy books when using the M-E’s local impulse term as done in some versions of M-E thrusters. 
 
Jim apparently knows about this M-E feature per his earlier e-mail comment to me from this morning, but he has neglected to hammer home the point to us thick headed engineers.  However, if Mach’s principle’s requirement that the origin of the energy contained in mass via Einstein’s E= m*phi = m*c^2 relationship holds, (it does), and it is in fact created by the gravitational potential energy of the causally connected universe, then on every force-rectified mass-fluctuation cycle of an M-E device, a small percentage of the M-E device’s dielectric mass’s gravitational potential energy (GPE) could be converted into the ever increasing directed kinetic energy of the operating M-E thruster in question. 
 
Of course we would then have to supply the subatomic mechanism that is converting the GPE of the local mass into kinetic energy via some type of particle physics model since atomic force interactions require some kind of exchange of particles between the potential and kinetic energy states.  Perhaps we might detect some type of subatomic particle flux made up of say electrically charged muons in the direction of the M-E thruster’s thrust vector, but it certainly does make one start to wonder about the need for more radiation instrumentation when operating these devices, at least at the higher thrust levels.
 
BTW, in essence what this surmise may mean is that the M-E or related gravinertial (G/I) devices can extract kinetic energy from the cosmological gravitational potential energy field with the appropriate use of low level, time varying electric and magnetic fields that are applied to a bulk accelerated and power varying dielectric materials.  This is far more elegant than breaking atoms or having to fuse atoms together to get at this energy source, and it provides an iron clad means of limiting the power levels harvested by the M-E device for any given power cycle by simply adjusting the magnitudes and phases of the applied electric and magnetic fields in the M-E device.  In a linear world at least…”

And lastly from me:
3.
“It is my understanding that the M-E impulse term can provide mass fluctuations in a local mass, but no NET energy transfers to/from the cosmological Far Off Active Mass (FOAM).  Without being able to express the M-E's wormhole term that evokes real microscopic GRT based wormholes that can conduct real net momenergy from the locally accelerated mass to/from the FOAM there is no viable means for transferring momenergy from the FOAM to/from the locally accelerated mass.  However, you can still use the M-E’s mass fluctuations created by the Cramer like transactional G/I momentum waves needed to push heavy / pull light, but your vehicle’s locally gained kinetic energy has to supplied by an on-board energy source such as vehicle batteries, nuclear reactors, etc.  That is the case unless you can extract part or all of the required M-E device’s push/pull power from the dielectric’s LOCAL (inside the light cone) gravitational potential energy in its mass, or by evoking the M-E wormhole term.”

Food for thought…
Star-Drive

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #879 on: 09/02/2010 03:44 PM »
So...are you saying it's basically impossible to build an M/E device with a T/W >1?

Tags: