Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 664048 times)

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #900 on: 11/02/2010 07:54 AM »
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.



Prof. Woodward is also going back to his rotary experiments, which he reckons are the best evidence of M-E fluctuation. Not as spectacular as measuring a whole N but perhaps more experimentally significant.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline mikorangester

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #901 on: 11/05/2010 03:39 PM »
Quote
Peacekeeper - 11/5/2008  12:45 PM

Some day the projects, of which I speak, will dominate over the primitive rockets, but I won't be alive to see it!

You have no proof that they aren't pseudo-science or that they will work

Left to people like you, there wouldn't be a space program. Yes, propellantless propulsion is real but unready. It needs more development. There are already patents on it eg asymmetric capacitors, emdrive etc

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #902 on: 11/05/2010 04:52 PM »
Quote
Peacekeeper - 11/5/2008  12:45 PM

Some day the projects, of which I speak, will dominate over the primitive rockets, but I won't be alive to see it!

You have no proof that they aren't pseudo-science or that they will work

Left to people like you, there wouldn't be a space program. Yes, propellantless propulsion is real but unready. It needs more development. There are already patents on it eg asymmetric capacitors, emdrive etc

Come on. Think about it. At the beginning of the space programs, chemical rockets had a million (probably more like a billion) or more times the thrust/weight ratio of one of these devices (assuming they (other than the MLT) generate thrust at all!). We could already launch sounding rockets to the edge of space. The technology jump was small compared to what will be required here.

Vast improvements will need to be made in propellantless propulsion, at least six orders of magnitude just in the thrust/weight ratio, in order for your comparison to be valid.
Karl Hallowell

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 #903 on: 11/05/2010 11:43 PM »
There are already patents on it...

There are also patents on genes that God created, patents on sequences of ones and zeros, which are written on paper, and patents on firing a rocket up from a hole in the ground.  Our patent system is broken.  It is part of the problem, not part of the solution.  A patent has very little meaning in some important ways.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #904 on: 11/06/2010 03:42 AM »
Without the financial backing to be able to afford to take an infringer to court, all you've done is hand them the detailed design.   And unless you've patented the idea in every nation in the world (very expensive), unscrupulous folk abroad can easily copy you without breaking any restrictions.

IMHO, patents aren't really worth the paper their written upon and they are a great way to distribute your detailed designs to everyone and anyone around the world who might be inclined to copy them.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2010 03:42 AM by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

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 #905 on: 11/06/2010 01:15 PM »
And furthermore, in China, it doesn't seem to matter.  Individual intellectual property is virtually non-existant.  The only thing that matters is the state.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #906 on: 11/06/2010 09:30 PM »
Quote
Peacekeeper - 11/5/2008  12:45 PM

Some day the projects, of which I speak, will dominate over the primitive rockets, but I won't be alive to see it!

You have no proof that they aren't pseudo-science or that they will work

Left to people like you, there wouldn't be a space program. Yes, propellantless propulsion is real but unready. It needs more development. There are already patents on it eg asymmetric capacitors, emdrive etc

Come on. Think about it. At the beginning of the space programs, chemical rockets had a million (probably more like a billion) or more times the thrust/weight ratio of one of these devices (assuming they (other than the MLT) generate thrust at all!). We could already launch sounding rockets to the edge of space. The technology jump was small compared to what will be required here.

Vast improvements will need to be made in propellantless propulsion, at least six orders of magnitude just in the thrust/weight ratio, in order for your comparison to be valid.


pal, with propelantless thrust, you dont need to carry the fuel.

whats better? 0.01 g of acceleration forever, or 6g acceleration for 5 minutes?

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2506
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #907 on: 11/06/2010 11:52 PM »
whats better? 0.01 g of acceleration forever, or 6g acceleration for 5 minutes?

Depends. Are you starting on the surface of Earth, Mars or the Moon?

Offline MP99

Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #908 on: 11/07/2010 01:10 AM »
IMHO, patents ... are a great way to distribute your detailed designs to everyone and anyone around the world who might be inclined to copy them.

Wasn't that the original intention with Patents - that they would encourage people to licence the technology for the benefit of society (but presumably in the expectation that it would be enforced by national laws)?

cheers, Martin

Offline mikorangester

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #909 on: 11/07/2010 12:15 PM »
Quote
Peacekeeper - 11/5/2008  12:45 PM

Some day the projects, of which I speak, will dominate over the primitive rockets, but I won't be alive to see it!

You have no proof that they aren't pseudo-science or that they will work

Left to people like you, there wouldn't be a space program. Yes, propellantless propulsion is real but unready. It needs more development. There are already patents on it eg asymmetric capacitors, emdrive etc

Come on. Think about it. At the beginning of the space programs, chemical rockets had a million (probably more like a billion) or more times the thrust/weight ratio of one of these devices (assuming they (other than the MLT) generate thrust at all!). We could already launch sounding rockets to the edge of space. The technology jump was small compared to what will be required here.

Vast improvements will need to be made in propellantless propulsion, at least six orders of magnitude just in the thrust/weight ratio, in order for your comparison to be valid.


You are comparing the early days of propellantless propulsion to the developments in rocket technology that is over 70 years old with constant modern development. Propellantless field propulsion is in its infancy, much as radio was with Marconi. Theoretically one should find at least +100 g's in it. Need proof than how about a bet?

Offline mikorangester

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #910 on: 11/07/2010 12:21 PM »
whats better? 0.01 g of acceleration forever, or 6g acceleration for 5 minutes?

Depends. Are you starting on the surface of Earth, Mars or the Moon?

You can get at least 100 g of acceleration forever. Its like comparing apples with oranges as they say. The technology is under-developed and in its infancy. Wait for the frequencies to increase beyond the 10x19 range and extremely low power.

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 #911 on: 11/07/2010 05:12 PM »
Need proof thaen how about a bet?

What?  Betting won't prove or disprove anything about the theory, nor will it enable or disable the implementation of that theory into a working model.

Quote
You can get at least 100 g of acceleration forever.

From what?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4186
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 207
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #912 on: 11/07/2010 05:25 PM »
There are already patents on it...

There are also patents on genes that God created, patents on sequences of ones and zeros, which are written on paper, and patents on firing a rocket up from a hole in the ground.  Our patent system is broken.  It is part of the problem, not part of the solution.  A patent has very little meaning in some important ways.

This pic pretty much sums up my thoughts on the patenting of genes and companies like Monsanto.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4186
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 207
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #913 on: 11/07/2010 05:29 PM »
whats better? 0.01 g of acceleration forever, or 6g acceleration for 5 minutes?

Depends. Are you starting on the surface of Earth, Mars or the Moon?

I been following some of these ideals if the effects are real I see these type of engines more as a replacement or supplement for ion engines.

The thrust levels might not even be high enough to replace VASIMR rockets anytime soon.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #914 on: 11/07/2010 08:44 PM »

You are comparing the early days of propellantless propulsion to the developments in rocket technology that is over 70 years old with constant modern development. Propellantless field propulsion is in its infancy, much as radio was with Marconi. Theoretically one should find at least +100 g's in it. Need proof than how about a bet?

Rocket technology really is about 800 years old. It's worth noting that when rockets were first developed (that is, as glorified bottle rockets by the Chinese), they still had thrust/weight ratios orders of magnitude greater than current propellantless propulsion.

I currently don't have sufficient resources for the bet you propose, but I would be satisfied with any propellantless (well of the sort described in this thread) engine that has a thrust/weight ratio of 1 and generates at least 1 newton of thrust. Further, it'd need to maintain these conditions for a sustained period of time (let's say one minute).

Karl Hallowell

Offline mikorangester

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #915 on: 11/08/2010 11:46 AM »
Need proof thaen how about a bet?

What?  Betting won't prove or disprove anything about the theory, nor will it enable or disable the implementation of that theory into a working model.

Quote
You can get at least 100 g of acceleration forever.

From what?

Check out my blog http://mykaitan.blogspot.com/2009/06/propellantless-propulsion.html

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 #916 on: 11/08/2010 02:42 PM »
Ok.  I bit.  From:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=mass+of+an+electron

Quote
electron mass = 9.10938188 10-31 kilograms

and from:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=mass+of+a+proton

proton mass = 1.67262158 10-27 kilograms

Which is about 1/1836?  Ish?  So when I got to the part in your blog where you state that  "The mass of the electron is 1/10000 the mass of the proton", I stopped.  Personally, I'm not in total understanding of the theory as outlined by Woodward and March;  I don't have what it takes to work with data that appears incorrect.  I notice that Mike Lorrey posted a comment on your site.  In addition, your "How to" graphic was illegible in my viewer.

As a side note, I wondered about the "reactions" that you seem to be expecting from your readers:  "Funny"?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 561
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #917 on: 11/08/2010 05:34 PM »
Looks like Oogie Boogie scientist to me.
The pork must flow.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #918 on: 11/08/2010 07:17 PM »
Looks like a solar sail to me.  There are other ways to pull off the same general idea, as mlorrey points out...

What really gets me is "Say that when the first pulse hits the atom surface, the electron orbit shifts upwards by 1% of the diameter of the atom."  No calculations, no references, nothing.  It sounds like he's just made up a number intuitively, which is a really bad idea when dealing with quantum mechanics...

And no, this will not work using light generated on board to push mass which is kept on board.  Light has momentum, and will push backwards on the light source exactly as much as it pushes forward on the target.

On the other hand, you can use this principle to produce thrust simply by shining a light backwards from your spacecraft.  To pull 100 gees, you need 294 GW per kilogram of total vehicle mass...
« Last Edit: 11/09/2010 12:41 AM by 93143 »

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #919 on: 11/08/2010 08:00 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?

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.

My eyebrows lifted at gravitomagnetic effects being noted as "emanating" from something in the lab...

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

How does the magnitude of the effect compare to the gravitomagnetic field of the Earth at the equator?

Tags: