Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 388834 times)

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 580
  • Liked: 9
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #760 on: 05/09/2010 04:39 AM »
Hi folks:

Yes, Stardrive is yours truly, (Paul March in TX), and I've had little time for the last several months to post on this forum due to my NASA work shedule that finally settled down to a dull roar at the end of last month.   

"I went back trying to get an understanding of the substantive rebuttal to the Oak Ridge paper, and noticed all your previous posts are gone, although plenty of replies are left. What's up with that?"

After receiving a number of cutting comments about my previous M-E posts, in a snit of anger I wiped the offending comments from this fourm.  In reptrospect and a side chat with Chris, I shouldn't have pulled them, but once gone, they are gone for good, so we shall just have to plow on from here without them.

"Just to clarify, does "bulk acceleration" mean that the whole cap has to move as opposed to just internal motion at the molecular level?"

Yes.  Unless the whole (bulk) cap is accelerated, all the motions of the internal plus and minus ions always sum to zero over a given E-field driven excitation cycle. 

"If so, are there any theories or papers on why that is?" 

Woodward neglected to formalize the bulk acceleration aspect of the M-E derivation because this assumption is inherent in the expression of ANY inertial reation force derived from Newton's three laws of motion.  In summary, the requirement for the bulk acceleration is the underpinning for any inerital effect, which the M-E is just one more aspect of same.  I.e., inertial back reaction forces don't happen unless there is a net per cycle bulk acceleration of a mass relative to the distant stars.  No bulk acceleration, no inertial reaction force, and there will certainly be no secondary transient inerital effects like the M-E.

"Also, I was curious, can the M-E be induced through any type of energy change, magnetic for example, or is there something special about electric energy in this particular application?  Anyway, interesting stuff..."

So far, only electric field based energy storage devices have been studied for their expression of the M-E.  However in theory, any energy storing system with mass that can experience a dE/dt signature with concurrent bulk acceleration should experience an M-E based transient inerital mass fluctuation of its energy storing mass.  This implies that a magnetic energy storing system (E= 1/2 L* i^2) should also be usable in an M-E generator.   Perhaps we could also use a gas pressure tank in a like manner with a fast acting fluidic valve to geneerate the dE/dt signature and a piston accelerator acting on the tank, but I'm doubtfull one could make such a contraption work fast enough to be of any use, but that's TBD...

Star-Drive

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Liked: 64
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #761 on: 05/11/2010 05:29 AM »
Hi Paul. I hope you are not too nationalistic because I am brazilian and I would like to take part in the exploration of the solar system (and beyond) hopefully using the M-E propulsion system :). Not that Earth nationalities will have much importance once the final frontier is open.

Anyway, technical questions aside... looking back, do you guys have any regret about ever mentioning in papers (or even in internet forums!) the possible APPLICATION of the M-E effect as a propellantless field propulsion system? Has such an "outrageous" idea affected support and even worse, funding on the research?

Because clearly, you guys are researching a theoretical effect that regardless the applications, if proved true, could mean a Nobel.

While its true that propellantless propulsion would be one of its main benefits, I guess that simply by mentioning it, lots of serious scientists stop reading at the first line, even before trying to understand the underlining principles. Ive seen it happen in a lot of forums (even this one), dont know if it would be really any different in the larger academical community.

So... how do you see reactions to the research? Do you think they would be less extreme if the research never mentioned the possible implications and solely focused on the effect itself? Do you and Dr Woodward team have any sort of timeline? IF the effect proves to be real, do you think we could be having real world applications of it before 2030 (when we should be going to Mars according to recent plans)?

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2131
  • Liked: 6
  • KISS Consultant
  • Cow Hampshire
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #762 on: 05/11/2010 05:51 AM »
Hi Paul. I hope you are not too nationalistic because I am brazilian and I would like to take part in the exploration of the solar system (and beyond) hopefully using the M-E propulsion system :). Not that Earth nationalities will have much importance once the final frontier is open.

Anyway, technical questions aside... looking back, do you guys have any regret about ever mentioning in papers (or even in internet forums!) the possible APPLICATION of the M-E effect as a propellantless field propulsion system? Has such an "outrageous" idea affected support and even worse, funding on the research?

Because clearly, you guys are researching a theoretical effect that regardless the applications, if proved true, could mean a Nobel.

While its true that propellantless propulsion would be one of its main benefits, I guess that simply by mentioning it, lots of serious scientists stop reading at the first line, even before trying to understand the underlining principles. Ive seen it happen in a lot of forums (even this one), dont know if it would be really any different in the larger academical community.

So... how do you see reactions to the research? Do you think they would be less extreme if the research never mentioned the possible implications and solely focused on the effect itself? Do you and Dr Woodward team have any sort of timeline? IF the effect proves to be real, do you think we could be having real world applications of it before 2030 (when we should be going to Mars according to recent plans)?

The Mach Effect is pretty standard in the Standard Model of modern physics. People who scoff at the theory generally are people who really aren't physicists and slept through that part of their university physics classes, and who cannot generally visualize the concept that wrt inertia, the conservation of momentum is a relationship between an object and every other object in the universe.

Its amusing the sort of retorts one sees. One fellow claimed inertia was proven by Einstein to be caused by distortions in the fabric of space time created by mass... which obviously demonstrated he was confusing inertia and gravity.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Liked: 64
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #763 on: 05/11/2010 06:18 AM »
as far as I understand, the existence of the Mach Effect and what exactly causes inertia is still under dispute. Even if it is accepted, Woodward´s explanation for it certainly isnt mainstream and isnt broadly accepted. Would love it all to be real and for Woodward to prove everyone else wrong. I will patiently wait for to promising results.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
  • Liked: 54
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #764 on: 05/11/2010 04:37 PM »

The Mach Effect is pretty standard in the Standard Model of modern physics. People who scoff at the theory generally are people who really aren't physicists and slept through that part of their university physics classes, and who cannot generally visualize the concept that wrt inertia, the conservation of momentum is a relationship between an object and every other object in the universe.

Its amusing the sort of retorts one sees. One fellow claimed inertia was proven by Einstein to be caused by distortions in the fabric of space time created by mass... which obviously demonstrated he was confusing inertia and gravity.

mlorrey, this isn't true. In fact the Mach Effect as it relates to the origin of inertia is largely rejected by many quite knowledgeable and competent physicists as incompatible with GRT and the standard model. Often in the argument it is conflated with retro-causality issues in QM, which are rejected in the same way.

Lubos Motls (motls.blogspot.com), a very competent physicist, has had several diatribes where he has described belief in the Mach Effect as the source of inertia as the GRT equivalent of belief in the luminiferous aether, on the basis that it violates the fundamental understanding of GRT that gravity propogates, like all other forces, at the speed of light.

I have trouble following the argument, but it is convincing to a layman.

What I do notice about the scoffers is that while the Woodward description of the Mach Effect is mocked, no alternative of what exactly causes inertia is ever proffered. The question is never asked.

Why, I don't know, but the unwillingness to ask the question intrigues me to no end.

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #765 on: 05/11/2010 05:23 PM »
Lubos Motls (motls.blogspot.com), a very competent physicist...

...and vehement skeptic of anything non-conventional. You need people like him in the discussion, but if you always listen to him, you'll never advance the state of science. Not surprised at all he doesn't like the M-E effect, as it messes up his pretty notions of locality.

Can't wait for Stardrive and Woodward to get that air-table demo working, just to watch people like Motls squirm.

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 0
  • Bulgaria, EU
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #766 on: 05/11/2010 07:15 PM »
Lubos Motls (motls.blogspot.com), a very competent physicist, has had several diatribes where he has described belief in the Mach Effect as the source of inertia as the GRT equivalent of belief in the luminiferous aether, on the basis that it violates the fundamental understanding of GRT that gravity propogates, like all other forces, at the speed of light.

"The differences between the Special and General Relativity are:

1. In SR light travels in a straight line. In GR light ray is bent.

2. In SR the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time are not merged. In GR the curvature of the four-dimensional spacetime continuum defines the deflection of light and the orbit of the planets, eliminating gravitation as a force.

3. The SR is based on relatively simple mathematical equations, The Lorentz Transformations, which leads to 'length contraction,' 'time dilation,' and 'relativity of simultaneity.' GR describes spacetime through a long series of highly abstract mathematical equations.

May I add that what SR and GR have in common is that they are both nonsense."

;)

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Liked: 64
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #767 on: 05/11/2010 07:25 PM »
Can't wait for Stardrive and Woodward to get that air-table demo working, just to watch people like Motls squirm.

what??? I had not heard about that!! Fantastic... I am crossing my fingers... any timeline?

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
  • Liked: 54
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #768 on: 05/11/2010 08:20 PM »
Lubos Motls (motls.blogspot.com), a very competent physicist...

...and vehement skeptic of anything non-conventional. You need people like him in the discussion, but if you always listen to him, you'll never advance the state of science. Not surprised at all he doesn't like the M-E effect, as it messes up his pretty notions of locality.

Can't wait for Stardrive and Woodward to get that air-table demo working, just to watch people like Motls squirm.

of course I wasn't suggesting that Motls is right about that, merely correcting mlorrey in his assertion that the Mach Effect as a souce of inertia is accepted or that the critics don't know physics.

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
  • Liked: 12
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #769 on: 05/11/2010 09:05 PM »
what??? I had not heard about that!! Fantastic... I am crossing my fingers... any timeline?
Only responding because P.March is likely too busy to keep up day-to-day: IIRC it's not exactly a plan, but it is one of the ideal ways it would be demo'd.

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #770 on: 05/11/2010 09:51 PM »
Can't wait for Stardrive and Woodward to get that air-table demo working, just to watch people like Motls squirm.
what??? I had not heard about that!! Fantastic... I am crossing my fingers... any timeline?

Don't hold your breath. Paul March has a day job, Woodward is still battling lung cancer, and neither are funded properly. I wish the Advanced Propulsion Concepts group were still together and that they would write these guys a nice $2M check every year to conclusively demonstrate the effect.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 580
  • Liked: 9
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #771 on: 05/12/2010 04:50 AM »
“Hi Paul. I hope you are not too nationalistic because I am brazilian and I would like to take part in the exploration of the solar system (and beyond) hopefully using the M-E propulsion system. :)  Not that Earth nationalities will have much importance once the final frontier is open.”

Anybody with a common interest in the exploration and colonization of the universe by humanity, and for the betterment of same in my book already has a ticket to ride the M-E express!  That is the major reason that Jim W and I have kept the communications lines on this M-E work open to forums like NASASpaceflight.com.

“Anyway, technical questions aside... looking back, do you guys have any regret about ever mentioning in papers (or even in internet forums!) the possible APPLICATION of the M-E effect as a propellantless field propulsion system? Has such an "outrageous" idea affected support and even worse, funding on the research?”

In regards to getting research grants the answer is a yes.  However there is no point in backing away from what this research is all about and that is overcoming the tryanny of the rocket equation!  That is why Jim and I run our respective R&D shops from our own resources and on our own time lines for it gives us the freedom to do and publically say what is right instead of what is politically correct.

“Don't hold your breath. Paul March has a day job, Woodward is still battling lung cancer, and neither are funded properly. I wish the Advanced Propulsion Concepts group were still together and that they would write these guys a nice $2M check every year to conclusively demonstrate the effect.”

Only when pigs can fly...  Sorry for that one, but getting funding for this type of bleeding edge R&D work has proven near impossible to obtain.  I guess it's because if we are successful, many a sacred cow and career is going to get gored, at least the critics of this work seem to think so.  Be that as it may, Woodward has set forth a very rational, "no new physics" approach to his "origins of inertia" and Mach-Effect conjectures based on Dennis Sciama's initial work in the 1950s and 60s on the origins of inertia question, Lorentz invariance, SR and GRT, with the last three elements being accepted theoretical physics constructs by most practicing physicists.  The only thing new that Jim W derived was the gravinertial transient terms that are hidden away in Newton's third law, and the recent possibility of reworking the particle physics “Standard Model” into a rational and non-contradictory theoretical construct that finally takes into account the origins of inertial mass for elementary particles for the first time.  These M-E gravinertial transient reaction terms can be as large, or larger than the forces that create them.  And they appear to be engineerable for propulsion and other yet to be determined purposes as well.  Getting to the M-E demonstration phase though has taken much longer than one would have liked due to the lack of reliable M-E analysis tools, engineering implementation details, and available time, but until we can float an M-E test article into the conference room, or at least run it across the air-hockey table under RC control, we are stuck pushing the M-E cart forward using our own resources on a time available basis. 

BTW, Jim W. is building up a new more robust shuttler test article as we speak, and I'm building up a new Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) prototype based on some N4700 COTS caps that should produce at least an order of magnitude higher thrust than my last successful test article, the Mach-2MHz, which generated up to 0.5 gram-force, (~5.0 milli-Newton).  As to when these new test articles will see first light, my guess is sometime this summer, barring unforeseen time sinks at work for me, or health issues with Jim.  (Jim W. is currently in remission from his lung cancer at the moment.  Let's us hope that it stays that way...!)
Star-Drive

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 0
  • Bulgaria, EU
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #772 on: 05/12/2010 02:12 PM »
Quote
Anybody with a common interest in the exploration and colonization of the universe by humanity, and for the betterment of same in my book already has a ticket to ride the M-E express!  That is the major reason that Jim W and I have kept the communications lines on this M-E work open to forums like NASASpaceflight.com.
I would like to join the work after I graduate from university.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
  • Liked: 54
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #773 on: 05/12/2010 03:45 PM »
Woodward has set forth a very rational, "no new physics" approach to his "origins of inertia" and Mach-Effect conjectures based on Dennis Sciama's initial work in the 1950s and 60s on the origins of inertia question,
For the newbs like me, to understand the relevance of a particular critique, start here:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1953MNRAS.113...34S/0000035.000.html

Quote
Lorentz invariance, SR and GRT, with the last three elements being accepted theoretical physics constructs by most practicing physicists.  The only thing new that Jim W derived was the gravinertial transient terms that are hidden away in Newton's third law,

then go here and start reading Woodward:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html

Quote

 and the recent possibility of reworking the particle physics “Standard Model” into a rational and non-contradictory theoretical construct that finally takes into account the origins of inertial mass for elementary particles for the first time.  These M-E gravinertial transient reaction terms can be as large, or larger than the forces that create them.  And they appear to be engineerable for propulsion and other yet to be determined purposes as well.  Getting to the M-E demonstration phase though has taken much longer than one would have liked due to the lack of reliable M-E analysis tools, engineering implementation details, and available time, but until we can float an M-E test article into the conference room, or at least run it across the air-hockey table under RC control, we are stuck pushing the M-E cart forward using our own resources on a time available basis. 

BTW, Jim W. is building up a new more robust shuttler test article as we speak, and I'm building up a new Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) prototype based on some N4700 COTS caps that should produce at least an order of magnitude higher thrust than my last successful test article, the Mach-2MHz, which generated up to 0.5 gram-force, (~5.0 milli-Newton).  As to when these new test articles will see first light, my guess is sometime this summer, barring unforeseen time sinks at work for me, or health issues with Jim.  (Jim W. is currently in remission from his lung cancer at the moment.  Let's us hope that it stays that way...!)


Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2131
  • Liked: 6
  • KISS Consultant
  • Cow Hampshire
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #774 on: 05/13/2010 02:06 AM »
Lubos Motls (motls.blogspot.com), a very competent physicist...

...and vehement skeptic of anything non-conventional. You need people like him in the discussion, but if you always listen to him, you'll never advance the state of science. Not surprised at all he doesn't like the M-E effect, as it messes up his pretty notions of locality.

Can't wait for Stardrive and Woodward to get that air-table demo working, just to watch people like Motls squirm.

of course I wasn't suggesting that Motls is right about that, merely correcting mlorrey in his assertion that the Mach Effect as a souce of inertia is accepted or that the critics don't know physics.

As a reply to that, I've known quite a few physicists who don't know physics.

At least no physics that isn't in their specialty or specifically pertaining to their own theories and theses....

Moderating at Wattsupwiththat.com, I've frequently had to moderate statements from actual physicists in academia who are literally so obsessed with their own crazy theories that they deny SR and GR, and even standard models of stellar evolution. One guy who is a tenured professor had to be banned because he would always hijack every comment thread to promote his iron sun and electric universe horsehockey. And don't get me started on the AGW cultists who also happen to be tenured and degreed physicists.

There are tenured physicists who still believe in the steady state universe model. Others promote Heim theory, even though its calculations for various constants and particle masses have shown to be extremely faulty, and don't forget the physicists who are pimping that Blacklight Power scam.

As for Motl, he's a skeptic, thats fine, thats his schtick.

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.


Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
  • Liked: 54
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #775 on: 05/13/2010 12:33 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?

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 580
  • Liked: 9
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #776 on: 05/13/2010 10:08 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.
Star-Drive

Offline sanman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1971
  • Liked: 103
Why Do We Have Inertia?
« Reply #777 on: 05/14/2010 03:15 PM »
Hi,

I'd like to know if Mach's Principle, which this conjectured Mach-Lorentz Thruster is based upon, is itself legitimate. I would also like to ask if Mach's Principle supports the idea of Quantum Foam.

To me, Mach's Principle is consistent with the idea that matter and space are related, and it also implies non-locality.

Is Mach's Principle legitimate, and if so, how come nobody talks about it?
From what I've read, Einstein's work is based upon it, and it seems to me that Mach's Principle examines the bedrock issue of why inertia even happens in the first place.

I like this questioning of why we have inertia, and I question why there aren't more people asking this question. I hate it when "experts" say "It's there because it's there - now shut up and stop asking inconvenient questions"  That really bothers me deeply.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9089
  • Liked: 553
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #778 on: 05/14/2010 04:13 PM »
...no alternative of what exactly causes inertia is ever proffered. The question is never asked....

I don't think that inertia is understood just yet.

Per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia#Source_of_Inertia
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 580
  • Liked: 9
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #779 on: 05/14/2010 04:30 PM »
...no alternative of what exactly causes inertia is ever proffered. The question is never asked....

I don't think that inertia is understood just yet.

Per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia#Source_of_Inertia

John:

Now that depends on who you ask.  Dennis Sciama, (Graduate student of Paul Dirac and Graduate Advisor to Steve Hawking amoung other stellar Physics folks from the 1960s, 70s and 80s), provided a very good explanation for the origins of inertia based on Mach's Priniciple and GRT.  (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_William_Sciama and Sciama's graduate paper on same.)  This is where Woodward started his quest for a better rocket via the Mach-Effect as revealed in its extendions to Newton's thrid law. 

And yes, the QM types have tried to make their Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations be the origins of inertia, (See Hal Puthoff & crew's work on same), but their arguments to date IMO don't stand up to Sciama's and the rest of the GRT folk's origins of-inertia theory.  Your opinion may differ, so we really need to be doing experiments instead of brushing this inertia issue under the rug.
Star-Drive

Tags: