Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 354470 times)

Offline kurt9

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1065 on: 01/30/2011 07:20 PM »
According to March's projections, the first application of this technology is the propulsion device. If the propulsion device can be developed by 2020, you can bet your bottom dollar that this technology will be licensed to the car and airplane manufacturers and that car and airplane engines based on this technology will be developed by 2030 (it takes about 10 years to develop a new jet engine from scratch). Conventional transportation will be changed by this technology. This is where the real money is for Mach-Woodward technology. I want my seastead and GeorgeJetsonmobile.

The propulsion technology alone would certainly open up the solar system to commerce and settlement (O'neill style). If we can get all of this by 2040, I'll be impressed! More importantly, this technology will eliminate the hydrocarbon economy as will as other supply constraints that tend to favor pathological social organization (illiberalism in the Lockean sense, luddism, etc.). The gravity generator would be useful in space habitat design. If it takes 50 years after this point to get the FTL/wormholes, so what? We still get what we want in the meantime.

Besides, I'm still not convinced that Mach-Woodward technology will lead to FTL/wormholes. Its entirely possible we get the "space drive", but that we're stuck with relativistic space travel for the indefinite future. Think of Reynold's "Revelation Space" universe as our future (without the plagues and alien machines, of course). His "conjoiner drive" being based on Mach-Woodward technology, only we don't need to become conjoiners to develop it.

As for life extension, there are plenty of discussion groups and blogs about it. The best discussion threads are at www.imminst.org under "forums". The best blog is www.fightaging.org.

Think SENS.

« Last Edit: 01/30/2011 07:27 PM by kurt9 »

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2561
  • Liked: 35
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1066 on: 01/30/2011 07:41 PM »
BTW, if you've not read my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper, that's the LOX/H2 fuel cell powered and M-E propelled vehicle that can lift off from the surface of the Earth, fly to the surface of the Moon in 4-to-6 hours time, and then off-load a payload of 2,000 kg and a crew of 2.  Then without refueling, head back to Earth with another 2,000 kg of payload and crew of 2 and be back where it started in another 4-to-6 hours, maintaining 1.0 gee "Torchship" like acceleration all the way coming and going.  And that is just the introductory capabilities of the M-E...
If this is correct, the space propulsion aspect of this is really just a footnote. The energy available from lifting your cargo and dropping it is clearly more than what is available from the fuel cell, so for all practical purposes this is an over-unity device. As cool as space travel is, unlimited free energy is far bigger news.

If it's correct.

Offline Oberon_Command

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1067 on: 01/30/2011 07:58 PM »
The energy available from lifting your cargo and dropping it is clearly more than what is available from the fuel cell, so for all practical purposes this is an over-unity device.

Doesn't that imply that the MLT breaks the laws of thermodynamics?
« Last Edit: 01/30/2011 07:59 PM by Oberon_Command »

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2561
  • Liked: 35
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1068 on: 01/30/2011 08:19 PM »
Doesn't that imply that the MLT breaks the laws of thermodynamics?
This has been discussed previously in the thread, and the proponents claim that it does not. It was not my intent to rehash that argument, I'm just pointing out that if what Star-Drive describes is possible, the practical impact is indistinguishable.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2720
  • Liked: 102
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1069 on: 01/30/2011 11:34 PM »
If it works, it's essentially farming energy from the distant universe.  So the first law is safe.  Whether or not this breaks the second law is a much subtler question...

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2460
  • Liked: 1
  • Melbourne, Australia
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1070 on: 01/31/2011 01:23 AM »
Here's a couple of questions for thought:

1)  If a number of intelligent species throughout the Universe were to use this technology, on a very large scale, what effect would this have on Universe?

2) Would we be able to detect any such effect with today's technology?


Intuitively, it seems like it might act to slow the rate of expansion of the Universe.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1071 on: 01/31/2011 07:03 AM »
I'm taking note that the tone of this thread has changed quite a bit from the first few pages. I read a lot of dismissive things such as "fantasy" and "crap" in the beginning of this thread. Perhaps they've changed their minds or considered that being dismissive without looking at experimental evidence doesn't benefit anyone?

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Liked: 32
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1072 on: 01/31/2011 09:08 AM »
I'm taking note that the tone of this thread has changed quite a bit from the first few pages. I read a lot of dismissive things such as "fantasy" and "crap" in the beginning of this thread. Perhaps they've changed their minds or considered that being dismissive without looking at experimental evidence doesn't benefit anyone?

No, most people just don't go into this thread any more. I, personally, only come here to check whether there are any signs that the ideas discussed here have reached mainline science community and got at least semi-positive reviews from it.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 23
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1073 on: 01/31/2011 11:55 AM »
I'm taking note that the tone of this thread has changed quite a bit from the first few pages. I read a lot of dismissive things such as "fantasy" and "crap" in the beginning of this thread. Perhaps they've changed their minds or considered that being dismissive without looking at experimental evidence doesn't benefit anyone?

I, personally, only come here to check whether there are any signs that the ideas discussed here have reached mainline science community and got at least semi-positive reviews from it.


that seems to be the goal of Woodwards ideas proponents. It takes time anyway. Hope nobody sees a problem with it, after all, they are NOT asking for anyone´s money and have a far better constructed theory and data, as well as concordant with current science but extending it towards a part that is not very well understood by any theory (origins of inertia)

this thread is this long exactly because Star Drive has been able to answer all questions and so far noone has been able to bore a hole in what he said.

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Liked: 0
  • Bulgaria, EU

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
  • Liked: 1
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1075 on: 02/01/2011 04:46 AM »
http://science.discovery.com/videos/sci-fi-science-exploring-the-universe.html

Interesting ;)

Sith:

You might be interested in reading Woodward's latest paper when it's published in Foundations of Physics later this year.  It's about how the M-E can be applied to the Warp Drive and Stargate problem discussed in this video.  It's 26 pages long and it covers some new and interesting ground on how to make warp drives and stargtates using the M-E's wormhole and higher terms to generate the required amount of exotic or negative G/I mass needed to create same.  And no, Jupiter sized exotic G/I masses will not be required for that estimate is a worst case.  It turns out it could be much, much less...

Making Stargates: the Science of Absurdly Benign Wormholes
James F. Woodward
Department of Physics
California State University, Fullerton, CA  92834
657-278-3596; jwoodward@fullerton.edu

Abstract. Stargates – extremely short throat “absurdly benign” wormholes enabling near instantaneous travel to arbitrarily remote locations in both space and time – have been a staple of science fiction now for decades.  And the physical requirements for the production of such devices have been known since the work of Morris and Thorne in 1988.  Their work has engendered a small, but significant literature on the issue of making stargates and warp drives.  Morris and Thorne approached the issue of rapid spacetime transport by asking the question: what constraints do the laws of physics as we know them place on an “arbitrarily advanced culture” (AAC) in the design and implementation of stargates?  Here we invert their question and ask: if “arbitrarily advanced aliens” (AAAs) have actually made stargates, what must be true of the laws of physics for them to have done so?  The chief problem in making stargates is that they seem to require the assembly of a Jupiter mass of “exotic” matter concentrated in a thin structure with dimensions of a few tens of meters.  Elementary arithmetic reveals that such structures would have a density of on the order of 1022 gm/cm3, that is, orders of magnitude higher than nuclear density. Not only does one have to achieve this stupendous density of negative mass matter, it must be done, presumably, only with the application of “low” energy electromagnetic fields.  A few schemes that at least in principle purport to do this that have been proposed by capable physicists are discussed.  And one that might actually work is examined in a little more detail.

Keywords: Stargates, Traversable Wormholes; Negative Matter; Time Machines; Semi-Classical Electron Models
PACS: 04.20Cv; 04.80Cc

Update:  Please note that Dr. Woodward plans to submit this paper to the Foundations of Physics (FP) Journal this year, but has yet to do so.  Sorry I overstated the case before, but Woodward has never had a paper rejected by FP in the past and I don't expect them to reject this one either.  (02-18-2011)
« Last Edit: 02/18/2011 06:37 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1076 on: 02/01/2011 06:12 AM »


Sith:

You might be interested in reading Woodward's latest paper when it's published in Foundations of Physics later this year.  It's about how the M-E can be applied to the Warp Drive and Stargate problem discussed in this video.  It's 26 pages long and it covers some new and interesting ground on how to make warp drives and stargtates using the M-E's wormhole and higher terms to generate the required amount of exotic or negative G/I mass needed to create same.  And no, Jupiter sized exotic G/I masses will not be required for that estimate is a worst case.  It turns out it could be much, much less...




Speaking of warp drives,

In the latest paper by Marc Millis (attached below), it is indicated that warp drives are far less energy efficient than wormholes. For example, 10^46 joules of negative energy would be required to open a wormhole of a 100m diameter. If that same amount is applied to the formation of a warp bubble of the same diameter, it would result in a speed of only 1% the speed of light. What I find most interesting about warp drive is the ultimate speed limit as defined by Richard Obousy's approach of the manipulation of extra dimensions: an astounding max velocity of c*10^32. According to Obousy, at this velocity you could cross the known universe in 10^-15 seconds!

However, if the efficiency calculations are correct, then I guess wormholes are the way to go; if it's possible that is. Personally, I've always loved the idea of warp drive. It's sad to see it go.

P.S.

Paul,

Do you know how Dr. Harold White's QVF/MHD conjecture experiments are coming along? I'm having difficulty finding any publications on his idea. So far I've only been able to find material from the STAIF 2007 conference.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 23
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1077 on: 02/01/2011 02:44 PM »
Quote
Elementary arithmetic reveals that such structures would have a density of on the order of 1022 gm/cm3, that is, orders of magnitude higher than nuclear density.

well, at least its also orders of magnitude lower density than a neutron star. 1kg/cm³ is nothing compared to the 1 billion tons by cm³ of a neutron star

Offline kurt9

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1078 on: 02/01/2011 04:43 PM »
Would not wormholes be much better than warp drive anyways? I'm assuming that if wormholes are possible, that you could set one up in a warehouse and have the other end open up, say, on a planet in another solar system. You just walk through it. No spacecraft needed at all!

Airports could be replaced with pedestrian malls with wormholes in them and wormhole generators (for freight transport) could be built in concentrations of warehouses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the image of the wormhole in the Scientific American article (which was written to discredit the idea) suggests that this is the idea.

I like this idea way better than being cooped up in any FTL spacecraft.

Peter Hamilton has written some SF novels called the Commonwealth where wormholes are used in this manner.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2460
  • Liked: 1
  • Melbourne, Australia
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1079 on: 02/01/2011 04:50 PM »
Quote
Elementary arithmetic reveals that such structures would have a density of on the order of 1022 gm/cm3, that is, orders of magnitude higher than nuclear density.

well, at least its also orders of magnitude lower density than a neutron star. 1kg/cm³ is nothing compared to the 1 billion tons by cm³ of a neutron star

I suspect that was supposed to be 10^22 gm/cm3. Since he did say higher than nuclear density. Around 10 million billion tons per cm3.

Tags: