Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 666576 times)

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #880 on: 09/03/2010 02:05 PM »
So...are you saying it's basically impossible to build an M/E device with a T/W >1?

Nope. People are wondering whether a MLT could be a sailboat or a motorboat. :)
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #881 on: 09/04/2010 05:05 PM »
nice... now... what does all that means in layman terms? :D  :P

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #882 on: 09/07/2010 03:32 AM »
So...are you saying it's basically impossible to build an M/E device with a T/W >1?

Where did you get the notion that the thrust to weight ratio would have to be less than 1.0?  All I'm speculating about is where the extra energy from an M-E based drive could be coming from when running with the energy supplied through M-E impulse term.  It says nothing about the maximum obtainable power and therefore its maximum thrust that can be generated relative to the drive's mass.  In fact this conjecture implies that an M-E device's available energy and power for thrust generation could be very large relative to its mass just because of the noted E= m*c^2 relationship using the local on-board mass to energy conversions.  And when you add the extra energy available through the non-local M-E wormhole term interactions, the mind boggles at the possibilities...
Star-Drive

Offline kurt9

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #883 on: 09/16/2010 06:44 PM »
Could the Mach effect be responsible for Tajmar's superconducting ring experimental results at AIT? His experiments produced gravitomagnetic effects that were far too large to be explained by Einstein's frame-dragging mechanism. He got his experimental results only when he accelerated or decelerated the rotating ring, not when the ring was at constant velocity. Could the "jerk" from the change in acceleration and deceleration be responsible for his results?

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #884 on: 09/17/2010 03:40 AM »
Could the Mach effect be responsible for Tajmar's superconducting ring experimental results at AIT? His experiments produced gravitomagnetic effects that were far too large to be explained by Einstein's frame-dragging mechanism. He got his experimental results only when he accelerated or decelerated the rotating ring, not when the ring was at constant velocity. Could the "jerk" from the change in acceleration and deceleration be responsible for his results?

Kurt9:

Since tranisent Mach-effects can generate forces as large or larger than regular acceleration induced inertial effects, its possible that Martin is seeing an expression of the M-E in his epxeriments, though he would probably be reluctant to say so.  Tajmar has been very skeptical of Woodward's M-E work to date, and until Jim W. or others can demonstrate tens of milli-Newton thrust levels in an M-E device that can only be attributable to the M-E, Martin has a right to be skeptical IMO.
Star-Drive

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #885 on: 09/17/2010 08:16 AM »
Could the Mach effect be responsible for Tajmar's superconducting ring experimental results at AIT? His experiments produced gravitomagnetic effects that were far too large to be explained by Einstein's frame-dragging mechanism. He got his experimental results only when he accelerated or decelerated the rotating ring, not when the ring was at constant velocity. Could the "jerk" from the change in acceleration and deceleration be responsible for his results?

Kurt9:

Since tranisent Mach-effects can generate forces as large or larger than regular acceleration induced inertial effects, its possible that Martin is seeing an expression of the M-E in his epxeriments, though he would probably be reluctant to say so.  Tajmar has been very skeptical of Woodward's M-E work to date, and until Jim W. or others can demonstrate tens of milli-Newton thrust levels in an M-E device that can only be attributable to the M-E, Martin has a right to be skeptical IMO.


IIRC Tajmar noted recently that the gravitomagnetic effects appear to be emanating from the He coolant fluid, not the superconducting ring itself. So it may have something to with interaction of the magnetic field lines from the ring and the coolant fluid.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2010 08:17 AM by Lampyridae »
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #886 on: 09/17/2010 03:01 PM »
I remember hearing that instrumentation conjecture before, and that it was followed some time later by a reversal of that interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Tajmar#Gravitomagnetism_research
In the references at the bottom.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.1033
The pork must flow.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #887 on: 09/20/2010 07:09 AM »
Hmmm, apparently railguns (of the military blow-you-up-kind, not the built-in-my-backyard kind) are experiencing little to no recoil. This is being blamed on torque, being stored in the homopolar generator, but since a big railgun is one of the first places you'd expect mass fluctuations to show up experimentally, this may be significant...
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #888 on: 09/21/2010 05:55 PM »
Hmmm, apparently railguns (of the military blow-you-up-kind, not the built-in-my-backyard kind) are experiencing little to no recoil. This is being blamed on torque, being stored in the homopolar generator, but since a big railgun is one of the first places you'd expect mass fluctuations to show up experimentally, this may be significant...

I am not aware of any railguns that move their capacitors back and forth in synch with their charge/discharge cycle.

by the by, railguns do experience as much recoil as physical law says should be the reaction force to any action of a projectile. Those that say they don't don't know what they are talking about.
« Last Edit: 09/21/2010 06:39 PM 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 Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #889 on: 09/22/2010 07:19 AM »
Hmmm, apparently railguns (of the military blow-you-up-kind, not the built-in-my-backyard kind) are experiencing little to no recoil. This is being blamed on torque, being stored in the homopolar generator, but since a big railgun is one of the first places you'd expect mass fluctuations to show up experimentally, this may be significant...

I am not aware of any railguns that move their capacitors back and forth in synch with their charge/discharge cycle.

by the by, railguns do experience as much recoil as physical law says should be the reaction force to any action of a projectile. Those that say they don't don't know what they are talking about.

Well I think the assumption was that the energy fluctuation took place in the projectile, hence lowering its mass (but this of course would raise the muzzle velocity). I'd expect something like an 8.999MJ recoil and 1m/s increase in projectile velocity.

I'd better read all the emails before I say anything.  :P

What is clear though is that the *location* of the recoil is still not well understood (or maybe it is, and it's classified). There's also the magnetic forces wanting to rip the rails apart but that's a separate issue.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2010 07:23 AM by Lampyridae »
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #890 on: 09/23/2010 01:44 AM »
Hmmm, apparently railguns (of the military blow-you-up-kind, not the built-in-my-backyard kind) are experiencing little to no recoil. This is being blamed on torque, being stored in the homopolar generator, but since a big railgun is one of the first places you'd expect mass fluctuations to show up experimentally, this may be significant...

I am not aware of any railguns that move their capacitors back and forth in synch with their charge/discharge cycle.

by the by, railguns do experience as much recoil as physical law says should be the reaction force to any action of a projectile. Those that say they don't don't know what they are talking about.

Well I think the assumption was that the energy fluctuation took place in the projectile, hence lowering its mass (but this of course would raise the muzzle velocity). I'd expect something like an 8.999MJ recoil and 1m/s increase in projectile velocity.

I'd better read all the emails before I say anything.  :P

What is clear though is that the *location* of the recoil is still not well understood (or maybe it is, and it's classified). There's also the magnetic forces wanting to rip the rails apart but that's a separate issue.

The paper I uploaded says the recoil is at the breach.

For an unclassified example, back in the 1990's a friend of mine had this 15 foot tesla coil and capacitor bank he'd do lightning shows with. We used the capacitor bank for some other tricks, one of which involved powering a rail gun with rails a mere 2 inches long, using a half inch slug of 8 guage copper as the bullet. There clearly was recoil driving the rails back, as well as flux pressure pushing them out to the sides, our jury rigged rail gun, fixed in a vise, would explode pretty much every time we dumped the load of that cap bank through it, turning the copper bullet to liquid and plasma in a stream that could put a big hole in a concrete block wall.
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 Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #891 on: 09/23/2010 06:57 AM »
Hmmm, apparently railguns (of the military blow-you-up-kind, not the built-in-my-backyard kind) are experiencing little to no recoil. This is being blamed on torque, being stored in the homopolar generator, but since a big railgun is one of the first places you'd expect mass fluctuations to show up experimentally, this may be significant...

I am not aware of any railguns that move their capacitors back and forth in synch with their charge/discharge cycle.

by the by, railguns do experience as much recoil as physical law says should be the reaction force to any action of a projectile. Those that say they don't don't know what they are talking about.

Well I think the assumption was that the energy fluctuation took place in the projectile, hence lowering its mass (but this of course would raise the muzzle velocity). I'd expect something like an 8.999MJ recoil and 1m/s increase in projectile velocity.

I'd better read all the emails before I say anything.  :P

What is clear though is that the *location* of the recoil is still not well understood (or maybe it is, and it's classified). There's also the magnetic forces wanting to rip the rails apart but that's a separate issue.

The paper I uploaded says the recoil is at the breach.

For an unclassified example, back in the 1990's a friend of mine had this 15 foot tesla coil and capacitor bank he'd do lightning shows with. We used the capacitor bank for some other tricks, one of which involved powering a rail gun with rails a mere 2 inches long, using a half inch slug of 8 guage copper as the bullet. There clearly was recoil driving the rails back, as well as flux pressure pushing them out to the sides, our jury rigged rail gun, fixed in a vise, would explode pretty much every time we dumped the load of that cap bank through it, turning the copper bullet to liquid and plasma in a stream that could put a big hole in a concrete block wall.

Thank you for the paper but unfortunately I've a problem with downloading stuff from NSF, and PDFs in general. Seems to be a proxy issue.

The one paper I've been able to find that touches on the subject rather deals with back-EMF as a result of the motion of the armature, and suggests that it winds up as elastic deformation of the rails. I wonder if any more research has been done in that regard?
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #892 on: 09/24/2010 04:48 AM »
Hmmm, apparently railguns (of the military blow-you-up-kind, not the built-in-my-backyard kind) are experiencing little to no recoil. This is being blamed on torque, being stored in the homopolar generator, but since a big railgun is one of the first places you'd expect mass fluctuations to show up experimentally, this may be significant...

I am not aware of any railguns that move their capacitors back and forth in synch with their charge/discharge cycle.

by the by, railguns do experience as much recoil as physical law says should be the reaction force to any action of a projectile. Those that say they don't don't know what they are talking about.

Well I think the assumption was that the energy fluctuation took place in the projectile, hence lowering its mass (but this of course would raise the muzzle velocity). I'd expect something like an 8.999MJ recoil and 1m/s increase in projectile velocity.

I'd better read all the emails before I say anything.  :P

What is clear though is that the *location* of the recoil is still not well understood (or maybe it is, and it's classified). There's also the magnetic forces wanting to rip the rails apart but that's a separate issue.

The paper I uploaded says the recoil is at the breach.

For an unclassified example, back in the 1990's a friend of mine had this 15 foot tesla coil and capacitor bank he'd do lightning shows with. We used the capacitor bank for some other tricks, one of which involved powering a rail gun with rails a mere 2 inches long, using a half inch slug of 8 guage copper as the bullet. There clearly was recoil driving the rails back, as well as flux pressure pushing them out to the sides, our jury rigged rail gun, fixed in a vise, would explode pretty much every time we dumped the load of that cap bank through it, turning the copper bullet to liquid and plasma in a stream that could put a big hole in a concrete block wall.

Thank you for the paper but unfortunately I've a problem with downloading stuff from NSF, and PDFs in general. Seems to be a proxy issue.

The one paper I've been able to find that touches on the subject rather deals with back-EMF as a result of the motion of the armature, and suggests that it winds up as elastic deformation of the rails. I wonder if any more research has been done in that regard?

Elastic deformation of the rails is its own recoil, laterally, that corresponds to the stresses against a gun barrel's walls by compressed gasses, and has nothing to do with actual recoil against the projectile. You really need to figure out how to get the paper I uploaded, it answers the questions rather well.
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 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #893 on: 09/24/2010 05:19 AM »
That paper is from 1986.  It demonstrates predicted recoil from classical physics.  If anything weird were to be observed with a real-life high-energy rail gun, that paper wouldn't be an answer.  It's like trying to prove the Mach-effect thruster unworkable by starting from the assumption that the inertial mass of an object is constant.

The paper does explain how the compulsator torque can be matched to the recoil moment, transferring the line of action of the recoil to the base of the setup and virtually eliminating the transient moment on the supports.  In this scenario, Newton's laws balance nicely without reference to anything further afield than a couple free-body diagrams representing the components of the mechanism.

That said, I take no position on the subject of whether or not observed railgun recoil actually matches classical predictions.  I have no data, and thus no opinion beyond a general prejudice in favour of classical physics.

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #894 on: 10/25/2010 05:19 PM »

Woodward's latest paper pretty much demonstrates that general relativity itself depends on Mach's Principle to function. If Motl took the time to actually read it, he may change his mind.


Which paper is that?

An M-E paper that Jim W is still refining.  Hopfully he will have it ready for publication in a few weeks.

Anyone know if this paper ever got published?

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #895 on: 10/26/2010 07:26 AM »
The MLT guys are still reviewing it. It's in its "final final final no really, final draft" stage right now. It's a difficult one to push through given all the skepticism but it should get there.

Star-Drive is looking at doing more work on the rigs in the short to medium term.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #896 on: 10/28/2010 11:57 PM »
I've been wondering what's been the holdup. It seems like there ought to be plenty of implications to flesh out beyond the bare sketches Woodward has mentioned before moving on to the Unbalanced force phenomenon that it predicts.


Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #897 on: 10/29/2010 07:53 PM »
Could the ultracapacitors find some use in the M-E experimental work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_double-layer_capacitor

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #898 on: 10/30/2010 03:51 PM »
Could the ultracapacitors find some use in the M-E experimental work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_double-layer_capacitor

They have relatively good energy density, but I have doubts about their frequency response. The Wikipedia article says that they "charge up in seconds" which is far too slow for an MLT.
Karl Hallowell

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #899 on: 10/31/2010 05:15 AM »
Could the ultracapacitors find some use in the M-E experimental work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_double-layer_capacitor

They have relatively good energy density, but I have doubts about their frequency response. The Wikipedia article says that they "charge up in seconds" which is far too slow for an MLT.

If they have the ability to replace the batteries, why not using them as energy source?
« Last Edit: 10/31/2010 05:17 AM by Sith »

Tags: