Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 2  (Read 2099555 times)

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
May I suggest that people interested in "Mach effect" (reality of which having obvious consequences on directions advanced spaceflight can take) contribute on a thread with a more appropriate explicit topic (and historical content) : Propellantless Field Propulsion and application. The risk in splitting the somewhat frozen propellantless discussion of late would be to make it even harder to revive some activity, but EM and ME approaches are two very different kind of theories and devices, interwining of both topic discussion in a single thread was one of the reason of the chaos that plagued the 1st EM drive thread.

Anyhow, for those interested in Mach effect, here are two versions of results from attempt of Woodward (2008...) at "proof of effect" exhumed from Propellantless thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13020.0;attach=260412
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13020.0;attach=260481

Haven't read in detail yet.
I won't crosspost here my posts about that (if I have the courage to address some of it deeper)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.msg1304798#msg1304798

Good points, frobnicat, besides the PropellantLess thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.0

the Woodward effect fans have had their own threads @ NASASpaceFlight, for example this one, completely dedicated to the Woodward effect:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0

The reported "thrust" force/(power input) of the latest Woodward experiments (Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser) is about 2000 times less than the NASA Brady et.al TE mode and about 20,000 times less than the Shawyer Demo

In other words, it takes (for the latest Woodward experiments) 3 to 4 orders of magnitude greater input power to produce the same level of what is reported as "thrust" force

« Last Edit: 12/19/2014 03:24 PM by Rodal »

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • United States
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 95
May I suggest that people interested in "Mach effect" (reality of which having obvious consequences on directions advanced spaceflight can take) contribute on a thread with a more appropriate explicit topic (and historical content) : Propellantless Field Propulsion and application. The risk in splitting the somewhat frozen propellantless discussion of late would be to make it even harder to revive some activity, but EM and ME approaches are two very different kind of theories and devices, interwining of both topic discussion in a single thread was one of the reason of the chaos that plagued the 1st EM drive thread.

Anyhow, for those interested in Mach effect, here are two versions of results from attempt of Woodward (2008...) at "proof of effect" exhumed from Propellantless thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13020.0;attach=260412
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13020.0;attach=260481

Haven't read in detail yet.
I won't crosspost here my posts about that (if I have the courage to address some of it deeper)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.msg1304798#msg1304798

Good points, frobnicat, besides the PropellantLess thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.0

the Woodward effect fans have had their own threads @ NASASpaceFlight, for example this one, completely dedicated to the Woodward effect:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0

The reported "thrust" force/(power input) of the latest Woodward experiments (Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser) is about 2000 times less than the NASA Brady et.al TE mode and about 20,000 times less than the Shawyer Demo

In other words, it takes (for the latest Woodward experiments) 3 to 4 orders of magnitude greater input power to produce the same level of what is reported as "thrust" force

Why does this matter? I was under the impression that while both lines of inquiry hold incredible promise. They still require more research and testing to get to the point where a wider audience would be willing to accept them.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249

The reported "thrust" force/(power input) of the latest Woodward experiments (Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser) is about 2000 times less than the NASA Brady et.al TE mode and about 20,000 times less than the Shawyer Demo

In other words, it takes (for the latest Woodward experiments) 3 to 4 orders of magnitude greater input power to produce the same level of what is reported as "thrust" force

Why does this matter? I was under the impression that while both lines of inquiry hold incredible promise. They still require more research and testing to get to the point where a wider audience would be willing to accept them.

As Chris Bergin made clear, the purpose of this forum is to deal with SPACEFLIGHT APPLICATIONS (of EM Drives: those propellantless drives comprised of a microwave cavity as the devices tested by Shawyer in the UK, Prof. Juan Yang in China and Brady, March, White, et.al. at NASA):

Quote from: Chris Bergi
focus on space flight applications to ensure this can have a healthy home here.

It matters because the amount of power required to produce a given level of thrust is of vital importance for spaceflight applications

The fact that  the latest Woodward experiments (Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser) show that it takes 20,000 times more power to produce a given level of thrust than the power required to produce the same thrust for the EM Drive (Shawyer demo) is extremely important for spaceflight applications.
« Last Edit: 12/20/2014 12:55 AM by Rodal »

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • United States
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 95

The reported "thrust" force/(power input) of the latest Woodward experiments (Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser) is about 2000 times less than the NASA Brady et.al TE mode and about 20,000 times less than the Shawyer Demo

In other words, it takes (for the latest Woodward experiments) 3 to 4 orders of magnitude greater input power to produce the same level of what is reported as "thrust" force

Why does this matter? I was under the impression that while both lines of inquiry hold incredible promise. They still require more research and testing to get to the point where a wider audience would be willing to accept them.

As Chris Bergin made clear, the purpose of this forum is to deal with SPACEFLIGHT APPLICATIONS (of EM Drives: those propellantless drives comprised of a microwave cavity as the devices tested by Shawyer in the UK, Prof. Juan Yang in China and Brady, March, White, et.al. at NASA):

Quote from: Chris Bergi
focus on space flight applications to ensure this can have a healthy home here.

It matters because the amount of power required to produce a given level of thrust is of vital importance for spaceflight applications

The fact that  the latest Woodward experiments (Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser) show that it takes 20,000 times more power to produce a given level of thrust than the power required to produce the same thrust for the EM Drive (Shawyer demo) is extremely important for spaceflight applications.

I get that efficiency matters. What ever propulsion device yields the highest thrust for the least amount of input energy is a superior device. That said since you also wrote a critique of the Eagle Works test showing that the results could be thermal effects I would think the Thrust figures of either EM Drives or MET thrusters would be consider as simply a measure of how far both approaches have to go to be useful. It could be that a large part of the EM Drive thrust numbers are thermal and will be reduced when tested in vacuum. It could also be that the MET results are small only because of the materials in use. It could also be that neither of these things will ever work. My point being, I do not see how the thrust figures as they exist today can be used as a useful indicator of which area of research should get preferential treatment. They are simply mile markers that cannot be easily compared between the two types of propulsion ideas.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16

The reported "thrust" force/(power input) of the latest Woodward experiments (Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser) is about 2000 times less than the NASA Brady et.al TE mode and about 20,000 times less than the Shawyer Demo

In other words, it takes (for the latest Woodward experiments) 3 to 4 orders of magnitude greater input power to produce the same level of what is reported as "thrust" force

Why does this matter? I was under the impression that while both lines of inquiry hold incredible promise. They still require more research and testing to get to the point where a wider audience would be willing to accept them.

As Chris Bergin made clear, the purpose of this forum is to deal with SPACEFLIGHT APPLICATIONS (of EM Drives: those propellantless drives comprised of a microwave cavity as the devices tested by Shawyer in the UK, Prof. Juan Yang in China and Brady, March, White, et.al. at NASA):

Quote from: Chris Bergi
focus on space flight applications to ensure this can have a healthy home here.

It matters because the amount of power required to produce a given level of thrust is of vital importance for spaceflight applications

The fact that  the latest Woodward experiments (Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser) show that it takes 20,000 times more power to produce a given level of thrust than the power required to produce the same thrust for the EM Drive (Shawyer demo) is extremely important for spaceflight applications.

question is: are those thrust to power rations result of the physics itself?

if they find a better material than PZT stacks to test Mach Effects, suddenly, the efficiency may be much higher.

to what part the thrust to power ratio of each system is an engineering or a physics problem?

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
As Chris Bergin made clear, the purpose of this forum is to deal with SPACEFLIGHT APPLICATIONS (of EM Drives: those propellantless drives comprised of a microwave cavity as the devices tested by Shawyer in the UK, Prof. Juan Yang in China and Brady, March, White, et.al. at NASA):

Quote from: Chris Bergin
focus on space flight applications to ensure this can have a healthy home here.

Why is this prescription by Chris Bergin being ignored?

Although the latest Woodward experiments (Fearn, Zachar, Woodward & Wanser) show that it takes 20,000 times more power to produce a given level of thrust than the power required to produce the same thrust for the EM Drive (Shawyer demo), and therefore these experiments do not constitute "EM Drive Spaceflight Applications" (as instructed by Chris Bergin) Woodward fans persist on carrying a debate on this thread rather than their own Woodward thread.   

Frankly, I don't understand what is the goal being pursued here by Woodward-effect fans to insist to carry arguments concerning Woodward's theory and experiments in this thread. 

The curtailment of the previous EM Drive thread by this forum's moderator was due to disruptive discussions regarding the validity of the Woodward effect, including a negative review of Woodward's book by a physicist.

As remarked by Frobnicat,

Quote from: Frobnicat
May I suggest that people interested in "Mach effect" (reality of which having obvious consequences on directions advanced spaceflight can take) contribute on a thread with a more appropriate explicit topic (and historical content) :>> << As reminded by managing editor, NSF is about space flight. Given the turn taken by the thread, the admin intervention is quite understandable, and most of the content wasn't thrashed, thanks.  While the "space drives" in general are on topic here if proven, the reality of any effect at all (and with what possible backing theories) is still controversial, and this open question is more a matter of fundamental science and has interest in and by itself beyond space flight. Since discussing those theoretical and experimental aspects are only marginally appropriate on this forum then that could proceed "preemptively" at other more appropriate place. Otherwise some talks will be rather contrived ( how make comment sound "space flight relevant" while it's not directly )

As previously remarked, there is a thread in this forum exclusively dedicated to the Woodward effect:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0




If the Woodward fans are looking for subjects to debate in the Woodward thread, here are a few suggestions you can add to such a discussion:


1) Extremely small reported thrust force/power input of the latest Woodward experiments (20.000 times less than Shawyer's demo and only barely more than the thrust of military search light acting as a photon rocket)

2) Recall Woodward's own words on his methodology:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13020.0;attach=260412

Quote from: Woodward
After carrying out a variety of experiments designed to exploit the presumed existence of Mach effects to produce small thrusts that yielded varying results, the decision was taken to carry out an experiment to test for the existence of such effects in the simplest of all possible circumstances. The aim was to settle the question of the existence the effects. Underlying physics suggests that these effects should exist; but in some experiments the effects expected were either not present, or much smaller than predicted. Without experimental evidence that the predicted Mach effects in fact do exist, situations in which they are small or not present may be taken as evidence that Mach effects do not exist.

Due to the extremely small level of thrust/power input (20,000 times less than Shawyer's demo) I am personally not interested in pursuing this Woodward debate, because these experiments show a level of thrust/power input that is so small that it does not constitute "Spaceflight Applications"

If there would be Woodward effect experiments with a similar or higher thrust/power-input as the Shawyer demo, I would be interested in pursuing this.  My approach then would be to model the thermo-mechanical and piezoelectric stresses in the Woodward experiment (for example with finite-element analysis) which -to my knowledge- has not been presented for the Woodward experiments.
« Last Edit: 12/21/2014 01:09 PM by Rodal »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
...That said since you also wrote a critique of the Eagle Works test showing that the results could be thermal effects I would think the Thrust figures of either EM Drives or MET thrusters would be consider as simply a measure of how far both approaches have to go to be useful. It could be that a large part of the EM Drive thrust numbers are thermal and will be reduced when tested in vacuum. ...

The technical paper I wrote concerned a thermo-mechanical effect that can explain the NASA Eagleworks truncated cone experimental results for the TE (transverse electric) mode both quantitatively and the initial impulsive rise time-wise response.  I showed that it is incorrect to posit (as some have done) that a thermal effect cannot produce an impulsive-like rise in the same time-frame as the NASA Eagleworks experiments.

Please also notice that it is incorrect to posit the following (if this was written in reference to my paper)

Quote
It could be that a large part of the EM Drive thrust numbers are thermal and will be reduced when tested in vacuum.

Because the thermo-mechanical effect I addressed in my technical paper does not at all need an atmosphere to take place.  As remarked in my paper, the same results would be expected in a vacuum.




Besides the effect discussed in my technical paper regarding the NASA Eagleworks truncated cone TE experiments, the following paper by Oak Ridge Lab:

http://web.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/pres/111404.pdf

addresses yet another thermal effect, specifically discussing the Woodward/Mahood experiments, which also can take place in a vacuum and does not need an atmosphere to take place.




A thermal effect that can take place in a vacuum that (as far as I know) has not been adequately explored (through numerical analysis) to explain the extremely small thrust/power-input results of the latest Fearn et.al experiments is the type of thermal recoil due to thermal radiation effect that has explained the Pioneer anomaly:

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.241101

« Last Edit: 12/20/2014 06:25 PM by Rodal »

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • United States
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 95
@Rodal,

Thank you for the clarification. That said I must say I am very cloudy on how anyone can have any interesting "Space Flight Applications" discussions about either of these technologies. Mainly because I am assuming that when someone uses the term "Space Flight Applications" they are talking about how these technologies can be used in different mission profiles. If that is the case then it doesnt matter what the technology is, the only thing that matters is the performance of the technology. Which would lead me to ask why even bother discussing any technology. Why not only have each thread in this forum focusing on a specific performance profile?

I have no objections to moving discussions about Mach Effect propulsion to another thread that is focused on just Mach Effects. The only reason I inquired about your comment regarding thrust comparisons is because given what we know, neither of them are ready for application today or even in the short term.

Anyway, I shall return to my lurker's seat while I await more EmDrive results.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 150
Some things don't scale - Woodward is one. Another with a much better chance is the Sagnac effect, the only challenge is getting anything useful out of them. At a larger scale it would be awesome if Stirling engines would scale.

EmDrive will stay in the lab

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Some things don't scale - Woodward is one. Another with a much better chance is the Sagnac effect, the only challenge is getting anything useful out of them. At a larger scale it would be awesome if Stirling engines would scale.

EmDrive will stay in the lab

I will avoid the obvious joke about the fact that your insight doesn't scale...
Woodward effect... And yet it moves! (HMXHMX I think)
Sagnac effect... hmmm
By Stirling engines I presume you mean ASRG. It will never provide multi-KW-MW power. It doesn't scale.
You claim to have knowledge of scaling of systems. It is quite apparent you do not.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
@Birchoff

Thank you for your comments.  If this was my forum, I would also prefer to discuss all these propellant-less drives together, including their R&D and theoretical foundations; I miss Mulletron & others' discussions.  However, this is not our house; we are just guests.  Things got very rowdy, after which  the host closed the door for a few days and warned us that we are welcome here only under these conditions.   Otherwise the host will close the door again.

Online ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 59
First, thanks to Chris for opening this new thread.

That said, some definitions might be in order to avoid confusion.

Stirling Engine:  The version I am familiar with is proven old line technology, essentially a temperature difference engine.   I have seen DIY versions on You-Tube and elsewhere, and read of others that can act as low power solar generators, but have no idea how this might pertain to spaceflight.  What is 'ASRG?'

Sagnac effect.  I have not heard of this before. 

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
First, thanks to Chris for opening this new thread.

That said, some definitions might be in order to avoid confusion.

Stirling Engine:  The version I am familiar with is proven old line technology, essentially a temperature difference engine.   I have seen DIY versions on You-Tube and elsewhere, and read of others that can act as low power solar generators, but have no idea how this might pertain to spaceflight.  What is 'ASRG?'

Sagnac effect.  I have not heard of this before.
ASRG is advanced Stirling radioisotope generator. It is purposed to generate more power than the traditional RTG at the cost of having moving parts.
The MSL rover has an RTG capable of 100W. This is the current state-of-the-art wrt RTG's.
Sagnac effect wrt to space flight is bunkum, IMHO...

Online ThinkerX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Alaska
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 59
Ok, did some googling.

First, to clarify things:  I live in Alaska, right at the edge of the wilderness.  I own property in the wilderness.  Some years ago, I was contemplating putting a cabin on that property - until my back told the rest of me in no uncertain terms that wasn't going to work.  Prior to that, though, I did some research on power generation, which is how I came to be aware of Stirling Engines.  The ones I was looking at were small - about the size of a larger bicycle pump, and not much more complex.  Given a heat source, they could generate electricity, but not much - but then again, they didn't need much of a heat source.  I figured just one wasn't going to do the trick.  Then I thought about it, and realized as small as they were, I could use the same heat source (wood stove) to power maybe six or eight of the things, hence generating six or eight times the power. 

That said, to me ASRG looks both doable and noncontroversial.  I don't grasp how it could be used for spaceflight propulsion, but it should be adequate for a Martian rover, automated station, or even a small manned installation. 

The Sagnac effect also looks like proven technology, useful for determining terrestrial location.  To my mind, its essentially a way of 'tricking light via rotation.'  This gives me half an idea relevant to the EM drive:

Suppose the whole copper frustum was rotating very, very, fast on its axis, AND you had the exterior (?) wrapped in about a quarter mile worth of wire (two wires)?  Seems to me that might be enough to produce an asymmetry in this system - though I have no idea whether that would be a useful asymmetry.

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
So, curious about this mention of Sagnac effect by Avron and relation to Em-drives, there is a short sentence at end of http://emdrive.com/principle.html :
Quote from: emdrive.com
...the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an open system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate frames of reference.
A similar approach is necessary to explain the principle of the laser gyroscope, where open system attitude information is obtained from an apparently closed system device.

For what it's worth, a comment on Slashdot (search Sagnac) about Wired article about 2012 publication of Yang Juan states :
Quote from: joe_frisch
There is a description of the Sagnac effect on wikipedia, this is the basis of a laser gyroscope. Interestingly Newtonian physics and relativity give the same answer for this. I isn't related to the microwave drive. I think they mention it because laser gyroscopes are conceptually complicated and they hope that the reader won't understand them, and therefor not understand that if anything they are yet more evidence that this trick doesn't work.
Uncorrected for spelling. The comment is about another post musing about the last sentence of emdrive.com principle page about laser gyroscope.

So, is there anything published with some level of detail explaining how a hypothetical "space drive effect", and with "good scaling" at that, could be derived or elucidated from the proven physics of Sagnac effect ?

Offline Econocritic

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 6
http://www.mehtapress.com/mehtapress/Journals/Journal-of-Space-Exploration/Volume-3-Issue-1/vol_3_issue_1_file_2.pdf

I'm not qualified to judge the space flight applicability of the above article by Dr. Woodward as it pertains to this forum.  A brief history,  theory and recent experiments are detailed. It also contains a critique of quantum vacuum explanations for emdrive propulsion. Just thought I should bring it to this groups attention and I'll return to lurking. I've passively appreciated this discussion for a long time.  Some of the most contentious moments have been the most educational.  I'll miss the perspectives of Ron Stahl and Mullertron assuming they don't return. Thanks to everyone who has contributed. Truly fascinating.
« Last Edit: 12/22/2014 05:17 AM by Econocritic »

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1361
There is some similarity of the EMDrive to the Sagnac oscillator if the optical fiber has a linear variation in the index of refraction.  The frames of reference are stationary and accelerating rather than constant velocity.  But, I havn't seen any reference or calculation giving rotary forces as yet.  At the moment I'm chasing old photon to graviton papers. 

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1361
There is some similarity of the EMDrive to the Sagnac oscillator if the optical fiber has a linear variation in the index of refraction.  The frames of reference are stationary and accelerating rather than constant velocity.  But, I havn't seen any reference or calculation giving rotary forces as yet.  At the moment I'm chasing old photon to graviton papers.

The Sagnac effect compares the (rotating) velocity frame of reference in which the opposing photons show the same frequency w/ the (stationary) frame in which the doppler photons are observed.

The Shawyer cavity photons can be compared in the (stationary) dispersion frame w/ the same frequency and in an (accelerated) frame which balances out the dispersion and expresses the doppler shifts.


Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5833
  • USA
  • Liked: 5901
  • Likes Given: 5249
There is some similarity of the EMDrive to the Sagnac oscillator if the optical fiber has a linear variation in the index of refraction.  The frames of reference are stationary and accelerating rather than constant velocity.  But, I havn't seen any reference or calculation giving rotary forces as yet.  At the moment I'm chasing old photon to graviton papers.

The Sagnac effect compares the (rotating) velocity frame of reference in which the opposing photons show the same frequency w/ the (stationary) frame in which the doppler photons are observed.

The Shawyer cavity photons can be compared in the (stationary) dispersion frame w/ the same frequency and in an (accelerated) frame which balances out the dispersion and expresses the doppler shifts.

A classic (1967, Air Force Cambridge Research Lab , Massachusetts) article on the Sagnac effect, by Post:

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Post1967.pdf

Quote
Post admits in his great review article: “The search for a physically meaningful transformation for rotation
is not aided in any way whatever by the principle of general space-time covariance (relativity), nor is it true that the space-time theory of gravitation (general relativity) plays any role in establishing physically correct transformations (relevant to the Sagnac effect).”
(parenthesis and bold added for explanatory purposes)

For a contentious viewpoint, here is a paper claiming interferometric measurements validate the classical approach and invalidate the relativistic approach (W. Engelhardt, Division Head, Wissenschatlicher Angestellter JET, Max-Planck-Institut für Physik)

http://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie.de/Anhaenge/Wolfgang-Engelhardt-Sagnac.pdf

Quote
In 1925 Michelson and Gale built a huge earth-fixed Sagnac Interferometer in Illinois demonstrating that the light velocity is anisotropic on the rotating earth. For Sagnac this result did not come as a surprise having explained the underlying effect on the basis of the ether theory in 1913. The Special Relativity Theory (SRT), however, had predicted on the basis of the Lorentz Transformation (LT) that the velocity of light is isotropic in all inertial systems

« Last Edit: 12/22/2014 08:41 PM by Rodal »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
http://www.mehtapress.com/mehtapress/Journals/Journal-of-Space-Exploration/Volume-3-Issue-1/vol_3_issue_1_file_2.pdf

I'm not qualified to judge the space flight applicability of the above article by Dr. Woodward as it pertains to this forum.  A brief history,  theory and recent experiments are detailed. It also contains a critique of quantum vacuum explanations for emdrive propulsion. Just thought I should bring it to this groups attention and I'll return to lurking. I've passively appreciated this discussion for a long time.  Some of the most contentious moments have been the most educational.  I'll miss the perspectives of Ron Stahl and Mullertron assuming they don't return. Thanks to everyone who has contributed. Truly fascinating.

thanks Econocritic, but Rodal just chastised us for posting about Woodward's Mach Effect theory in this thread, at post #32
Quote from: Rodal
the purpose of this forum is to deal with SPACEFLIGHT APPLICATIONS (of EM Drives: those propellantless drives comprised of a microwave cavity as the devices tested by Shawyer in the UK, Prof. Juan Yang in China and Brady, March, White, et.al. at NASA)

...

and therefore these experiments do not constitute "EM Drive Spaceflight Applications" (as instructed by Chris Bergin) Woodward fans persist on carrying a debate on this thread rather than their own Woodward thread.   

Frankly, I don't understand what is the goal being pursued here by Woodward-effect fans to insist to carry arguments concerning Woodward's theory and experiments in this thread. 

He is right about that. This is the EM Drive thread. And my guess is that what he wrote was valid for everyone of us, including new members like you.

So I think you should post your link in another topic, probably the Propellantless Field Propulsion and Applications thread...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.1830
« Last Edit: 12/22/2014 04:17 PM by aceshigh »

Tags: