NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => New Physics for Space Technology => Topic started by: Peacekeeper on 05/11/2008 08:07 am

Title: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Peacekeeper on 05/11/2008 08:07 am
Why does NASA not turn much attention on this revolutionary propulsion, which will make spaceflight accessible to everybody, instead of a few chosen 3-4 times per year?
Not only rockets are danger, but their potential is limited. I know about laser and other type of propulsions, but a spacecraft directed by this concentrated light is dependent on the same source.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2008 01:00 pm
$$$$$
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Peacekeeper on 05/11/2008 02:35 pm
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$
Aren't 16 billion $ per year not enough :?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Tim S on 05/11/2008 02:44 pm
Quote
Peacekeeper - 11/5/2008  9:35 AM

Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$
Aren't 16 billion $ per year not enough :?

No, not for side projects on pseudo-science. It's been spent on real vehicles and real science.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Peacekeeper on 05/11/2008 04:45 pm
Quote
Tim S - 11/5/2008  5:44 PM

Quote
Peacekeeper - 11/5/2008  9:35 AM

Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$
Aren't 16 billion $ per year not enough :?

No, not for side projects on pseudo-science. It's been spent on real vehicles and real science.
They weren't real 60 years ago. They are real now, because of the progressive minds and their scientific work over the decades.  Attention, my friend, attention must be turned on such  "pseudo-science", like you said ;)     Some day the projects, of which I speak, will dominate over the primitive rockets, but I won't be alive to see it!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2008 04:48 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
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Jim on 05/11/2008 05:03 pm
This isn't a conspiracy.  I speak against unfounded rumors and unresearched posts  

USENET is a good place for these discussions.

My job is to get spacecraft into orbit, it is doesn't matter how they get there.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 05/11/2008 05:35 pm
Thanks admins for trimming the nonsense from this thread. There are a number of propellantless methods for changing the momentum of a spacecraft, for example, aerobraking and gravity assists. But to be a possible propulsion technology, the effect needs to be clearly demonstrated first, and then scaled up to something viable. If we're going to use Earth's magnetic fields to get into space (which I assume are the fields you're refering to), then we need a model that generates net force. A key part of the problem is that the Earth's magnetic field primarily generates a torque (a rotation force) not a force pushing in a useful direction. The only ways I know of generating net forces in a particular direction involve structures on the scale of the Earth's magnetic field. For example, a giant conductive ring, looped around one of Earth's magnetic poles, could. through a suffiicently strong electric force travelling in the appropriate direction, generate a large net force that would push it away from Earth.

If you propose to use something like this on the scale of a rocket, then you need to explain the propulsion mechanism. In particular, why is it going to generate net force rather than flip the vehicle?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Peacekeeper on 05/11/2008 06:22 pm
These and others, khallow, like the 'Tether'.  And 'Lifter' technology as well :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: meiza on 05/11/2008 08:22 pm
"Lifters" use air as reaction mass, and need energy for the ionization and acceleration of the air. I wouldn't class it as propellantless since you need both an energy source and reaction mass. It's more like a propeller aircraft.

Tethers can use electrodynamics in low Earth orbit to respin after tossing a payload, and can produce the power for that from solar cells so it could be propellantless propulsion I guess that could perhaps work indefinitely since the momentum exchange is with the mass of Earth.

Then there are the solar sails, electrodynamic and electrostatic sails, all propellantless propulsion if thought of as that way that use the sun's light or the solar wind (which is an ion stream).
Title: RE: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cpcjr on 05/11/2008 09:20 pm
Actually NASA already uses a “propellantless field propulsion” in the form of a gravitational slingshot that swings a space craft around on planet to give it a boost to another.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/12/2008 12:49 am
Solar sails and tethers have already been tested. NASA has an advanced propulsion lab that used to do deal with all this before they got axed (or so I believe). The only technologies of interest appeared to be casimir effect drives and wormholes. Casimir effect is real, but the thrust is so far pathetic. Wormholes are still sci-fi for all intents and purposes but vaguely plausible.

>EDIT<

Peacekeeper, instead of starting off discussions without apparently knowing much about the subject, why not read the many threads contributed to by people who actually put nuts and bolts into space? Or work with REAL technology? I believe you will derive much more benefit by doing so first.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Peacekeeper on 05/12/2008 05:30 am
Quote
meiza - 11/5/2008  11:22 PM

"Lifters" use air as reaction mass, and need energy for the ionization and acceleration of the air. I wouldn't class it as propellantless since you need both an energy source and reaction mass. It's more like a propeller aircraft.

Tethers can use electrodynamics in low Earth orbit to respin after tossing a payload, and can produce the power for that from solar cells so it could be propellantless propulsion I guess that could perhaps work indefinitely since the momentum exchange is with the mass of Earth.

Then there are the solar sails, electrodynamic and electrostatic sails, all propellantless propulsion if thought of as that way that use the sun's light or the solar wind (which is an ion stream).
Then what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive :)  Can it replace today's rockets?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Eerie on 05/12/2008 09:06 am
Can`t someone ban Peacekeeper? It is rather annoying.  :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hmh33 on 05/12/2008 08:30 pm
Quote
Peacekeeper - 12/5/2008  1:30 AM
Then what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive :)  Can it replace today's rockets?

No, because it is fake science.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Disssident on 05/17/2008 05:42 pm
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$
How much?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 05/17/2008 08:16 pm
Quote
Disssident - 17/5/2008  10:42 AM

Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$
How much?

No idea. But you'd have to 1) find an effect, 2) make it large enough that it'd be useful for spacecraft propulsion, and 3) build economically viable engines that use the effect to get to orbit (as indicated by the original poster). If it is relatively easy, I think it'd take a few tens of billions. If the effect isn't useful for the purpose, then no amount of money will make a difference.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Disssident on 05/17/2008 09:00 pm
Further research of Casimir effect is a key point of success! Several milion $ are enough to prove that a propulsion, based on this "phenomena", is possible!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 05/17/2008 11:03 pm
Quote
hmh33 - 13/5/2008  6:30 AM

Quote
Peacekeeper - 12/5/2008  1:30 AM
Then what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive :)  Can it replace today's rockets?

No, because it is fake science.

EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hop on 05/18/2008 12:12 am
Quote
Nathan - 17/5/2008  4:03 PM
EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.
He claims to have a working prototype. He claims it doesn't violate conservation of momentum, but many experts disagree.

See http://www.newscientist.com/blog/fromthepublisher/2006/10/emdrive-on-trial.html for various objections.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 05/18/2008 01:32 am
Quote
hop - 18/5/2008  10:12 AM

Quote
Nathan - 17/5/2008  4:03 PM
EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.
He claims to have a working prototype. He claims it doesn't violate conservation of momentum, but many experts disagree.

See http://www.newscientist.com/blog/fromthepublisher/2006/10/emdrive-on-trial.html for various objections.

His main challange is to prove that it is actually an open system and not a closed one - which he obviously hasn't done to anyone's satisfaction. I'm convinced by the video of the device actually moving. If it is a closed system then the particles are simply going to bounce around on the walls of the device. If it is truly an open system then he is on to something.

On the general thrust of this thread - NASA cannot throw money into wormhole research etc because the phycisists haven't figured out how to do that and no amount of money can make a difference. One the ideas are on a firm footing then they should be funded. Sails are a good option.
The EM-drive probably shouldn't be funded until there is a peer reviewed proof that it is an open system and can do what it says it does. That said, given that it has government funding and has produced what looks like a working prototype - it certainly cannot be dismissed quite so easily.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: tnphysics on 05/18/2008 02:24 am
It is possible to perform propulsion with light as reaction mass.

But this requires a large energy input and the light is ejected.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 05/18/2008 07:36 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 17/5/2008  9:24 PM
It is possible to perform propulsion with light as reaction mass.
But this requires a large energy input and the light is ejected.

And also it requires 99.99999999% efficient energy-to-light conversion, if you don't want your ship to instantly vaporize.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: publiusr on 06/26/2008 06:02 pm
Thus the anti-matter photon drive--meant for starships of the far, far future.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hop on 06/30/2008 07:47 am
If you think this is all science fiction that's your privilege, but the peer reviewed experimental data showing that this is all possible with enough development effort put into it over the next 25-to-50 years is readily aviable on the web and elsewhere, like the American Institute of Physics (AIP) if you care to look for it. 
Uh-huh. If you are so confident about this, how about providing and actual link or citation ?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 06/30/2008 12:40 pm
The only true way to make a starship is to be able to create a spacedrive that can modifiy gravity and/or inertia.  Everthing else talked about here except perhaps the EM drive is just for use on solar system scale missions.

I don't know what you mean by a "starship". but if you're willing to settle for slower travel times between stars (on the order of thousands or tens of thousands of years), then chemical engines and gravity assists will do. You need the really advanced propulsion technologies, if you're attempting high travel speeds (significant fraction of the speed of light), then you'll need something special. My point here is that if you are willing to spend a lot of time, then current propulsion technologies are sufficient for traveling between the stars. It all depends on the profile of the trip.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 06/30/2008 02:04 pm
The only true way to make a starship is to be able to create a spacedrive that can modifiy gravity and/or inertia.  Everthing else talked about here except perhaps the EM drive is just for use on solar system scale missions. 

Gene Rodenberry pretty much nailed it when he created the Starship Enterprise that was equipped with inertia modification "impulse-drive" system for solar system based travels and a wormhole based "warp-drive" for interstellar jumps measured in days to weeks and not tens to hundreds of years for both the ship crew and the folks back home.  If any of you are curious how this might be done, we have to look at the confulence of General Relativity and Quntum Mechancis to first find the means to transiently modify the inertial properties of mass by manipulating its stored energy and bulk acceleration of that mass relative to the distant stars.  That Mach/Lorentz technology will provide us the Startrek like "impluse drive" we need to start down this path.  We then use this same "gravinertial" technology to create traversalble wormholes shortcuts through spacetime that our starships can use to star hop.   

If you think this is all science fiction that's your privilege, but the peer reviewed experimental data showing that this is all possible with enough development effort put into it over the next 25-to-50 years is readily aviable on the web and elsewhere, like the American Institute of Physics (AIP) if you care to look for it. 

Hmmm, so that's how the UFOs do it ! ;) Seriously though why are we bothering with Ares V if it's only 25 years away ? What's the catch ?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 06/30/2008 02:48 pm
Last time I checked to establish a traversable wormhole you needed large amounts of negative mass, that unfortunately cannot be provided by antimatter. But maybe there have been recent breakthroughs.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 06/30/2008 10:47 pm
sandrot, you need negative curvature in a wormhole "handle" (maybe you can get by with a positive cosmological constant and a smaller nonnegative curvature) somewhere in your wormhole (it's a result out of topology). Negative mass-energy is a known way to do that. I don't know if it's required though. And who knows? We might be able to create wormholes, but not naked negative energy.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/01/2008 04:28 am
HOP:

Sure, try this one: http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000813000001001321000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
And if you want any more citations, let me know...

[...]


The part I like, is:

Quote from: March&Palfreyman

When Woodward's (2004a, 2004b, 2005) and our test results were compared with the model's predictions, the test results exceeded predictions by one to two orders of magnitude. Efforts are underway to understand the discrepancies and update the model.


Are March and Palfreyman going to be the Pons and Fleischmann of the 21st Century?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/01/2008 04:31 am
[...] See Dr. Harold White's following paper on Space-time metric engineering at the following link for details:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t52g457576w8m2x2/ 


The fact that something can be theorized doesn't mean it exists nor that it can be observed. There are tons of publications on string theory, for instance.

I wouldn't go around screaming that men in black are hiding the truth.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/01/2008 04:58 am
The money will go where there's money to be made. That's the way it works. This might not lead to the Star Trek world we all dream of.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/01/2008 05:07 am
Agreed, sandrot.

The negative energy densities involved in opening a wormhole throat open are frightening. With current physics, you're talking about the equivalent negative mass / energy of something like a terrestrial planet. It ain't happening soon.

The Standard Model of physics doesn't explain everything, and it is probably not correct and will in time be superceded, just as Newtonian was superceded by Einsteinian physics. But at the moment, the discrepancies are tiny and whether or not it will enable FTL / reactionless drives / unicorns is unknown and unknowable. What is known is that all propellantless propulsion solutions are either pseduoscience or generate laughably miniscule amounts of thrust. That's why they are not throwing $$$$$$ at it. Ares I and V are engineering longshots as it is, and they are based on technology that is essentially "off the shelf."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/01/2008 11:55 am
Khallow:

IMO multiple generation starships are out of the running since they would only be attempted by our current world governments out of a desparate need to survive as a race.  It's much better to think a bit more creatively and out of the current power and propulsion (P&P) box, and then put some development R&D resources into it to see what really can be done in this advnaced P&P venue.

Who said multigenerational? Extreme longevity (here, living long enough that the same crew can be used for the entire tens of thousands of years trip) is probably more feasible than some of the other ideas bounced around here.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/01/2008 01:04 pm
Sandrot:

[...] And when that happens, we will have signed our death warrants in the long term for when the next killer asteroid comes along, we still won't have enough of our civilization off this rock to survive. [...]

I am a little fed-up with catastrophism. Yes, I am a human-induced-global-warming skeptic.

Even if another Chicxulub event should happen tomorrow (figuratively speaking) I am not concerned for the future of humankind. As much as I like spaceflight I believe that we would not try to place survivors on the Moon or on Mars (maybe around the Earth?), but that we would invest our resources in building shelters.

It's more likely you'll see P&P advances when they can be applied to weapons.

Last time I checked it was the DoD that was interested in space based solar power.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/01/2008 06:06 pm
Sandrot & Crew:

Ok, let's not be dramatic [...]


Good idea. I dropped participating to discussions over Direct because they're usually too emotional.

As Lampyridae points out, money will go where big thrust can be demonstrated. The next thing in line (i.e. where some money is being put) is VASIMR.

About other more exotic phenomena, there's not yet enough "critical mass" to get the things going. Experience from the past has shown that extraordinary claims were not followed by extraordinary evidence.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/01/2008 07:30 pm
[...] As to what is unambiguous for most folks seem to fall around 1.0 Newton (101.971 gram-force) of force output at a minimum with preference being given to being able to levitate the test article into the conference hall.    

Not quite there. We didn't go to the Moon with those guys levitating coffee tables in the late 1800.

If you have the tastebuds for this kind of stuff, search through the countless patents awarded for antigravity generators. I wonder why my car isn't flying yet.

:)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: scienceguy on 07/01/2008 08:57 pm
Is sunlight strong enough out at Mars to power a VASIMR roundtrip?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/01/2008 09:19 pm
Yes, sunlight is half the intensity at Earth. It does mean that you do have half the thrust that you would at Earth. But I don't believe this is a significant problem. The main effect is to enlarge somewhat the configuration space for which fission power is superior to solar power.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/02/2008 03:31 am
Is sunlight strong enough out at Mars to power a VASIMR roundtrip?

A VASIMR spacecraft for Mars could have approximately twice the area of solar cells that a Moon spacecraft has.  Alternatively the route could be planned so that the spacecraft spends about twice as much time near Mars than Earth or a mixture of both.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hop on 07/02/2008 04:50 am
Sandrot & Crew:
... that several possible solutions to the Propellantless Propulsion question might be available if we are willing to work with it.
Emphasis added. Possible. No one is saying that we shouldn't research far out ideas. However, it is also possible that none of them will pan out. The field is littered with hucksters and kooks, but not much in the way of real results. This is a long way from your earlier claim that we just need 25-50 years of hard work.

Sure, warp drives would be great, but reality has a tendency not to give a crud what you wish for.

Completely disregarding the physics (and I freely admit I don't have the education to evaluate many of the proposed mechanisms), IMO the Fermi Paradox is a strong indication that star travel is REALLY hard. Of course, there are other possible explanations.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 07/02/2008 02:31 pm
nice overview about most current good ideas for propellantless field propulsion:

http://www.earthtech.org/publications/Robertson-Murad-Davis_ECM_49_3.pdf
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/02/2008 06:45 pm
One of the reasons this exotic physics effects are always so small, and so negligible in providing us large thrust, is that if they were bigger they would have been noticed before, questioning currently widely accepted models.

This makes me think that it's unlikely we will see a real breakthrough.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/02/2008 06:48 pm
[...] IMO the Fermi Paradox is a strong indication that star travel is REALLY hard. Of course, there are other possible explanations.

One possible explanation is that actually aliens are all over, they don't use radio signals to communicate and they abide to Prime Directive.

This explanation fails Occam's Razor, but that's another story.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cpcjr on 07/02/2008 07:26 pm
[...] IMO the Fermi Paradox is a strong indication that star travel is REALLY hard. Of course, there are other possible explanations.

One possible explanation is that actually aliens are all over, they don't use radio signals to communicate and they abide to Prime Directive.

This explanation fails Occam's Razor, but that's another story.

The simplest explanation and thus the one that fits Occam's Razor the best is that ET's do not exist. This is supported by our observation of other star systems that tend to show large planets extreamly  close to their stars.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: nacnud on 07/02/2008 07:32 pm
The main reason we see large planets near other stars is that currently that is all we can detect.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cpcjr on 07/03/2008 12:19 am
The main reason we see large planets near other stars is that currently that is all we can detect.

I am aware of that but it does change the fact that this what what we have actualy observed. These large planets are in orbits that preclude the possibility of smaller ones in the habitable zone.

I did not say this fact proves ET does not exist but only that it supports the view that they don't. ti
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/03/2008 01:53 am
The main reason we see large planets near other stars is that currently that is all we can detect.

I am aware of that but it does change the fact that this what what we have actualy observed. These large planets are in orbits that preclude the possibility of smaller ones in the habitable zone.

I did not say this fact proves ET does not exist but only that it supports the view that they don't. ti

Hot jupiters only appear in about 5% of all stars surveyed. There are plenty of giant planets in habitable zones that could host multiple terrestrial-sized moons. Take HD 82493 b for example:

http://www.extrasolar.net/planettour.asp?PlanetID=131

Eccentric, but within the habitable zone, which according to a lot of researchers is all you need. So long as the average temperature is acceptable, the planet is likely habitable.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 07/03/2008 02:26 am
[...]
Eccentric, but within the habitable zone, which according to a lot of researchers is all you need. So long as the average temperature is acceptable, the planet is likely habitable.

As long as these giant planets in habitable zones don't sport a nasty radiation environment as our own Jupiter, you might be right.

Guys, we're OT.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/03/2008 04:13 am
[...]
Eccentric, but within the habitable zone, which according to a lot of researchers is all you need. So long as the average temperature is acceptable, the planet is likely habitable.

As long as these giant planets in habitable zones don't sport a nasty radiation environment as our own Jupiter, you might be right.

Guys, we're OT.

Agreed. Extrasolar planets needs its own thread. I don't think that interstellar travel is all that difficult; a metallic solar sail launched from 0.1 AU would reach 0.01c.

I think one of the promising areas of tech for the 21st century is in materials science and lasers. A laser beam's energy can be bounced back and forth many times to get more thrust per watt of beam power, for example. Metamaterials are enabling previously "impossible" areas like negative refractive indexes, which could open areas of monumental impact on beamed propulsion.

While I would love to see a propellantless propulsion system that could thrust at even milli-G levels, the sad truth is that most of them produce levels of thrust that are almost indistinguishable from experimental noise. Propellantless propulsion is going to demand advances from both physics, to explain what the heck is going on, and materials sciences, so that we can build the structure to the required tolerances, whatever they may be.

One field I am also hoping to see more of is from Heim theory and superconductors. If correct, then this could be a real flying-saucer-zip-off-into-space drive. At the current time we can (although it is highly disputed) make an artificial gravity gradient with rotating superconductors, as mentioned in the PDF reference. I find that highly encouraging.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 07/03/2008 10:27 am

That's only becuse you've cut the search for a solution off at the pass before even trying.  For instance, the latest Excel spreadsheet tool we've developed for Woodward's MLT over the last seven months, based primarily on electrical and mechancial engneering issues, has over 100 controlling variables that have to be in "just so" relation to each other to get a predictied thrust of any appreciable value.  And by appreicable value I mean in the hundreds to thousands of Newtons instead of micro-Newtons where most of the possible solutions end up.  We hope to have an experimental verification of these latest MLT predictions later on this year, but the main point here is that with so many controlling variables, getting one of these PFP devices to run correctly and efficiently is like trying to balance a broom on your finger tip, in the dark.  It isn't easy, but it's NOT impossible!


So the work on the MLT's didn't cease last year. I had not seen one paper or presentation (STAIF) about MLTs in the last year so I thought the development effort died off during the last year. Thankfully thats not the case.

Quote
BTW, this thread is also suppose to be about space applications of PFP drives if anyone was so bold as to actually build one.  Did any of you download and read the MLT application paper by March on his Warpstar concept Lunar vehicle?  Now that puppy would be paradigm changing, (From the Earth to the Moon and back again in less than 12 hours and that's loafing.), and it's just the first step once its basic 22,500 Newton Mach-Lorentz Thruster module is in the bag...

Sure. I have read the AIAA-houston pdf about the lunar shuttle. Link:  http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/alt.php  It's the first paper "AIAA Jan07 Horizons" on the page. By the way the other papers are not bad either. ;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cpcjr on 07/03/2008 02:57 pm
The main reason we see large planets near other stars is that currently that is all we can detect.

I am aware of that but it does change the fact that this what what we have actualy observed. These large planets are in orbits that preclude the possibility of smaller ones in the habitable zone.

I did not say this fact proves ET does not exist but only that it supports the view that they don't. ti

Hot jupiters only appear in about 5% of all stars surveyed. There are plenty of giant planets in habitable zones that could host multiple terrestrial-sized moons. Take HD 82493 b for example:

http://www.extrasolar.net/planettour.asp?PlanetID=131

I was referring to more than just hot Jupiters. My point was that most of the planets that have been detected  are large and in orbits that would eliminate any Earth size planets in the habitable zone.

Quote
Eccentric, but within the habitable zone, which according to a lot of researchers is all you need. So long as the average temperature is acceptable, the planet is likely habitable.

No such moon is known to exists and the radiation environment around a gas giant would probably render it uninhabitable. Not only that but the tidal environment could also be a problem.

To try to move things back on to topic. The original comment was that lack of ET contact could mean that interstellar travel is extremely difficult. My point was since current observation are most consistent with ETs  not exiting to be contacted, that  lack of ET contact means nothing for the feasibility interstellar travel, field drives, warp drives or any other form of dream propulsion system.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: synchrotron on 07/04/2008 02:14 pm
mboeller:

The MLT R&D is very much alive, but this work is currently in the oven, so I see no point in publishing papers that cost ~$1,500 a pop for the author unless there is something major to document for the community.  We are also pursuing a more basic experimental series that we hope will demonstrate conclusively the existence of Woodward’s conjectured mass fluctuations using rotary induced centripetal acceleration as the bulk acceleration variable, along with charging and discharging a set of ceramic capacitors at 40 kHz.  Initial results for this test series appear to be positive, but we are currently characterizing and quantifying the error sources in the experiment to make sure we just aren’t looking at garbage.

Charging and discharging of ceramic capacitors at 40 kHz has what to do with validating mass fluctuations?  What does 40 kHz have to do with anything?  Why specify ceramic?  Is this just smoke and mirrors like it appears?  What measurand are you quantifying?  What measurement approach are you using?  How do you establish statistical significance of your measurements?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/06/2008 01:19 pm
@Star-Drive,

What I don't understand exactly is this notion of a gravito-electric wave. It seems to be present in a lot of other theories; what exactly is the basis for this? Their similarity as fields?

The other thing I'd like to know is what would need to be known for a workable MLT. Is it a matter of materials science, such as high-K dielectrics, or more getting that sweet speet of 100s of variables? In short, how possible is it that an MLT if possible, would be able to generate ~1G of thrust?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/06/2008 10:01 pm

OK, now you asked about what gravitoelectric waves were and as best I can determine, and I’m not the expert to consult here, gravitoelectric waves are spacetime compression waves in the G/I field and are the primary momentum carriers for inertial forces.  However you must remember that these gravinertial compression waves use radiation reaction effects to convey their momentum from the particle to the field and back and therefore their transit times from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe is nearly instantaneous.

This is a violation of the general relativity model which is well supported at the macroscopic (non-quantum) scale in the known universe. Plus, in a number of theories that combine gravity and EM (for example,  the usual Maxwell's equations in a general relavity spacetime and the original 5 dimension Kaluza Klein models), photons are a special case of gravitoelectric waves and of course propagate at the speed of light.

Edit: Let me correct myself here. Photons, because they are massless don't have a compression wave component. But I think my take still works since the compression wave component is just part of a greater wave structure. And a significant part of that is known to travel exact at the speed of light.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/07/2008 12:46 am
Thanks, Star-Drive. This is very interesting stuff... I must admit that I am guilty of just skimming over equations instead of trying to understand them (I particularly detest matrices), but these are with a good attempt to cogitate (NO!! my brain screams in protest.) I had read about the radiation-inertial theory before, but I'd only seen it tested without a capacitor, i.e. using instantaneous acceleration only. The results were quite marginal.

This is a question created in deepest ignorance... is it absolutely necessary to have a capacitor? As I understand it, what is most important is energy density in the "reaction mass." Would making population inversions also result in a transient mass fluctuation? Would it be of sufficient density to be useful?

"However, as a certain LM/Fort Worth scientist is fond of saying; “Follow the data, theory be dammed!”"

A good philosophy if ever I heard one.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/10/2008 03:58 am
So, the mass fluctuation is a result of the ion accelerations in the capacitor, right?

So, a particle is accelerated in the +X direction pretty fast, gaining mass. Meantime, it is accelerated in the +y direction for impulse. When +x acceleration starts to decrease, -y reverses.

Y
|
|                                 
|                          3
|           2                        4
|_1_________________________5  X

So there's 2 B field pulses for every 1 discharge. Or is it 1:1? I saw 2omega and 1omega being used that way in the theory part.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/11/2008 09:05 am
khallow:

I'll let you argue with the folks like John Wheeler and Richard Feynman, (well that might be a tad hard since both gentlemen are dead), but have at with John Cramer (Washington State U) about his Transactional QM thesis over whether energy can be transferred at effectively superluminal speeds or not, but either inertia is a Machian effect which requires at a minimum local (sub-luminal) energy transfers between the accelerated mass and the preexisting gravinertial field and/or it’s a "spooky action at a distance" momentum transfer between the locally accelerated mass and all the rest of the mass in the universe via wormhole like momentum transfers.  If you think QM’s “local” quantum vacuum fluctuation approach is a better model for these types of inertial interactions OK, a case can be made for that view as well, though Woodward regularly shoots down that case in his papers.  Oh yes, and some other folks think that the QVF is driven by background instantaneous QM entanglements between mass elements, so then we are right back conflicting with your no FTL transactions edict, so let me direct you to another one of Woodward's tutorials on this tpoic: http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm

Woodward is of the opinion that this argument will not be settled until there is a viable quantum gravity theory brought forth, experimentally verified, and accepted by the physics community, but until then we have to make do with the overlapping and conflicting views of GRT, QM and the conservation laws as our only guides if we want to make any progress in this field.  However, as a certain LM/Fort Worth scientist is fond of saying; “Follow the data, theory be dammed!”  Being more of an engineer than scientist this is my view as well.  And our ten plus years of data says that there are mass fluctuations or QVF LIKE effects available to be engineered, so we press on.

Two things. First, traditional quantum mechanics is not machian. An observation is not just dependent on initial state, but also on final state. In other words, you start up an experiment, you let it evolve, then you observe it, collapsing the system in the process.

Second, such things as "wormhole like momentum transfers" and "background instantaneous QM entanglements between mass elements" are artifacts of the models not of reality. They also appear crudely equivalent for what that's worth. Perhaps this is an indication of some real faster than light exchange of information which is the necessary precondition for any interesting FTL effects, but we haven't actually observed such effects. In particular, the mass fluctuations which Woodward and perhaps others seek, may not exist in the observable world.

Finally, I see no point to arguing with Wheeler or Feynman. The standard general relativity model doesn't have instantaneous gravity effects. Their opinions won't change that. Everything interacts at the speed of light. Real world may be different, but as mentioned above  we need observation of these effects. Woodward's efforts here do not seem sufficient. We need extraordinary results for extraordinary claims.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/12/2008 12:46 am
Khallow:

Well, you've given us the reasons why you think propellantless propulsion (P-P) can't work, so do you have any contributions to this forum on how P-P could be made to work, or are you just content with the status quo? 

BTW, we do have tentative data supporting the existence of mass fluctuation like signals.  However from your previous comments, I have to assume that the P-P test article will have to levitate under its own power before you will concede that there MIGHT be something interesting going on... 

I mentioned three propellantless methods on the first page. Aerobraking, gravity assists, and a conducting ring circling one of Earth's magnetic poles while generating an opposing magnetic field. We also have light sails, light propulsion, and various tricks for using EM fields and plasmas to deflect the solar wind. Aside from aerobraking these are all field-based. Contribution has been established.

Here's my problem. I see a scattering of hypothetical propulsion methods in this thread. Most don't actually have significant experimental evidence of any net force exerted. Even if we ignore all that, how are these methods going to generate more force for power consumed than light propulsion? That is, light propulsion seems to me to be the cap on the best thrust for power that you can get for a massless propulsion system.

With these fancier systems, you still have to explain why go through the effort? What's the advantages of these other methods?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/12/2008 07:07 am
Quote
  It doesn't buy us what we really need IMO and that is interstellar flight with effective flight velocities greater than c.

Just because we "need" it doesn't mean we can get it. There's no evidence for FTL. Similarly, while we might be able to work the Casimir effect into some way to tap vacuum energy, we don't really have a plan for that either. From what I understand, it appears that a big problem with the attempts outlined in this thread to exploit "gravinertial" fluctuations (or whatever they're called) depends on the attempt (some sort of oscillation of a capacitor I gather) being quantum correlated with the fluctuation. There's no reason from our experimental evidence to assume one can do that. Even if you can, that's a long way from tapping vacuum energy or FTL.

[March 16,2009] Edit: Fixing only the quote tags since they were broken in a very ugly way.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: scienceguy on 07/12/2008 10:05 pm
Here's something I posted before about wornholes: the papers mentioned are worth looking into.

Note the Visser paper mentions that wormholes are possible with arbitrarily small energy condition violations. The Casimir Effect is an energy condition violation, bigger than arbitrarily small.

Wormholes and the Casimir Effect

Both Visser et. al. (2003) and Morris et. al. (1988) have done calculations about wormholes. Apparently they are possible only using the Casimir Effect, which is a small energy condition violation.

The amount of negative energy generated by the Casimir Effect depends on the distance between the metal plates and a value for the vacuum energy density. Vacuum energy density values range from 0 to 10^92 kg/m^3 (Weinberg, 1989). More recent estimates place the value between 10^19 kg/m^3 to 10^53 kg/m^3 (NASA). I will be assuming that the vacuum energy density is 10^19 kg/m^3. This is a conservative yet reasonable estimate.

If one has 2 perfectly flat metal plates each say 1 m x 1 m x 10nm, and these are placed so they are some small distance apart, say 1nm from surface to surface, these plates will produce the Casimir Effect. The Casimir Effect is a phenomenon where wavelengths of light produced by the vacuum energy are excluded from existing between the two plates because their wavelengths are longer than the distance between the plates. Since longer wavelengths of light have less energy than shorter wavelengths, most of the vacuum energy remains between the plates.

However, even if the Casimir Effect only excludes 1% of the energy in a vacuum from between the plates, that 1% would still amount to 10^17 kg/m^3. This 10^17 kg/m^3 is now the difference in energy from the normal vacuum energy density and that which is allowed between the plates. This is a negative energy density. Because there is only 1 m x 1 m x 1 nm of volume between the plates, this amounts to 10^-9 m^3 between the plates. Thus, per m^2, we have:

10^17 kg/m^3 x 10^-9 m^3 = 10^8 kg/m^2.

Conservation of Energy

I will base the following calculations on the law of conservation of energy and assume a 100% efficient wormhole. Note that the energy for these traverses of distance comes from the vacuum energy density.

To send 10^3 kg to Mars in sqrt(2) seconds, the energy required would be:

x = ˝ at^2

a = 2x/t^2 = 2 * (10^10 m)/ (sqrt(2) s)^2 = 10^10 m/s^2

m = 10^3 kg

F = ma = (10^3 kg)(10^10 m/s^2) = 10^13 N

W = Fx = (10^13 N)(10^10 m) = 10^23 J

Converting the energy required into kg of negative mass, we have

E = mc^2   m = E/c^2 = 10^23 J/10^17 m^2/s^2 = 10^6 kg

Thus 10^6 kg of negative mass is required.

Thus, using Casimir Effect metal plates separated by 1 nm to generate that negative mass, the area of metal plates would need to be:

10^6 kg/ 10^8 kg/m^2 = 10^-2 m^2 or 10^2 cm^2

This can be achieved with a 1 cm wide Casimir Effect metal ring with a circumference of 100 cm, or a radius of 16 cm.

Even Further

If we were to use this same method to travel to the nearby star epsilon Eridani (10.5 ly or 10^17 m away), we can figure out how much area of metal plates we would need. We will again base the calculation on the assumption that it takes sqrt(2) seconds to traverse the wormhole.

a = 2x/t^2 = 2 * (10^17m)/(sqrt(2) s)^2 = 10^17 m/s^2

F = ma = (10^3 kg)(10^17 m) = 10^20 N

W = Fx = (10^20 N)(10^17 m) = 10^37 J

E = mc^2   m = E/c^2 = 10^37 J/10^17 m^2/s^2 = 10^20 kg

Thus 10^20 kg of negative mass is required.

10^20 kg/10^8 kg/m^2 = 10^12 m^2 or 10^6 km^2

Thus, in order to travel almost instantaneously via a wormhole to epsilon Eridani, we would need 10^6 km^2 of Casimir Effect metal, or an open metal cylinder with height 100 km long and a circumference of 10^4 km or a radius of 1600 km.

References

Morris, M., Thorne, K. and Yurtsever, U. (1988) Wormholes Time Machines and the Weak Energy Condition. Physical Review 61 (13):1446-1449

Visser, M., Kar, S., and Dadhich, N. (2003) Traversable Wormholes with Arbitrarily Small Energy Condition Violations. Physical Review Letters 90 (20): 201102

Weinberg, S. (1989) The Cosmological Constant Problem. Reviews of Modern Physics 61 (1): 1-23

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/possible.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: scienceguy on 07/12/2008 10:24 pm
I don't know the math for this, but it seems that the Casimir Effect can be increased by Landau Damping of the light waves popping in and out of existence. Landau Damping is a phenomenon whereby particles can be slowed down by giving energy to light waves or sped up by taking energy from light waves. Electrons in an element are moving around at near the speed of light, so they should be able to take energy from light waves popping in and out of existence, increasing the wavelength of those light waves, so they will be excluded from existing between the plates because their wavelengths are longer, increasing the Casimir Effect. The Landau Damping I'm guessing might work best if a metal with lots of electrons in its outer shells were used, like Platinum or Iridium. Does anyone here know whether electrons move faster in a metal if the metal is heated?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 07/12/2008 11:27 pm
Here's something I posted before about wornholes: the papers mentioned are worth looking into.

Note the Visser paper mentions that wormholes are possible with arbitrarily small energy condition violations. The Casimir Effect is an energy condition violation, bigger than arbitrarily small.

Wormholes and the Casimir Effect

Both Visser et. al. (2003) and Morris et. al. (1988) have done calculations about wormholes. Apparently they are possible only using the Casimir Effect, which is a small energy condition violation.

The amount of negative energy generated by the Casimir Effect depends on the distance between the metal plates and a value for the vacuum energy density. Vacuum energy density values range from 0 to 10^92 kg/m^3 (Weinberg, 1989). More recent estimates place the value between 10^19 kg/m^3 to 10^53 kg/m^3 (NASA). I will be assuming that the vacuum energy density is 10^19 kg/m^3. This is a conservative yet reasonable estimate.

If one has 2 perfectly flat metal plates each say 1 m x 1 m x 10nm, and these are placed so they are some small distance apart, say 1nm from surface to surface, these plates will produce the Casimir Effect.
...
However, even if the Casimir Effect only excludes 1% of the energy in a vacuum from between the plates, that 1% would still amount to 10^17 kg/m^3.

10^17 kg/m^3 is almost unimaginably large amount of energy.

I replied to your earlier post that many people moved metal plates to these distances, do I have to believe they all somehow missed several quadrazillion megatons of TNT released in the process?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: scienceguy on 07/12/2008 11:51 pm
Here's something I posted before about wornholes: the papers mentioned are worth looking into.

Note the Visser paper mentions that wormholes are possible with arbitrarily small energy condition violations. The Casimir Effect is an energy condition violation, bigger than arbitrarily small.

Wormholes and the Casimir Effect

Both Visser et. al. (2003) and Morris et. al. (1988) have done calculations about wormholes. Apparently they are possible only using the Casimir Effect, which is a small energy condition violation.

The amount of negative energy generated by the Casimir Effect depends on the distance between the metal plates and a value for the vacuum energy density. Vacuum energy density values range from 0 to 10^92 kg/m^3 (Weinberg, 1989). More recent estimates place the value between 10^19 kg/m^3 to 10^53 kg/m^3 (NASA). I will be assuming that the vacuum energy density is 10^19 kg/m^3. This is a conservative yet reasonable estimate.

If one has 2 perfectly flat metal plates each say 1 m x 1 m x 10nm, and these are placed so they are some small distance apart, say 1nm from surface to surface, these plates will produce the Casimir Effect.
...
However, even if the Casimir Effect only excludes 1% of the energy in a vacuum from between the plates, that 1% would still amount to 10^17 kg/m^3.

10^17 kg/m^3 is almost unimaginably large amount of energy.

I replied to your earlier post that many people moved metal plates to these distances, do I have to believe they all somehow missed several quadrazillion megatons of TNT released in the process?

Indeed. It depends on what the vacuum energy density is. However, as far as I know, no one has made metal plates exhibiting the Casimir Effect in a circle...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 07/13/2008 12:53 am
I replied to your earlier post that many people moved metal plates to these distances, do I have to believe they all somehow missed several quadrazillion megatons of TNT released in the process?

Indeed. It depends on what the vacuum energy density is. However, as far as I know, no one has made metal plates exhibiting the Casimir Effect in a circle...

The problem here, as I ses it, that we don't know yet quantum physics well enough. Without that, making an assumplions like "However, even if the Casimir Effect only excludes 1% of the energy..." is far too unreliable. What if Casimir Effect excludes only 10^-17 % ? Or, a more useful question: at the distance of N nm, how many % are excluded?

Theory cannot answer that, partly because we intrude into this small dark corner where today's quantum physics hides its inability to calculate the "naked" electron charge and the like. QED formulae give nonsensical answer which is a diverging series. This can be ignored (cheated) if we want to calculate measurable effects _relative_ to_ vacuum_ energy_, but if we want to calculate that energy itself, we need to fix QED to stop giving us nonsense. String theory tries to do it, as do others, but so far no conclusive results...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/13/2008 10:54 pm
Karl:

No evidence of FTL, if you would bother to look, there is plenty of credible experimental data that says differently.  Oh well, I guess there's not much point in discussing this topic with you since you have already made up your mind and tossed it in the trash can.  Have fun with your rockets and electric motors...

I disagree. There simply isn't plenty of credible evidence. There's a lot of weird quantum effects which routinely get misinterpreted as evidence of particles moving faster than light. But the only thing that counts as evidence here of FTL is moving information from one place to another faster than the speed of light. That hasn't happened yet.

As for changing minds, it's irrational and unscientific to just change one's mind for the sake of changing one's mind. New relevant information has to be revealed first. I'm sorry, but you haven't delivered new information (with respect to FTL) on which to base a change of mind.

My take is that any FTL effect is going to be rather hard to find else we would have seen it already. The low lying fruit has been picked.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/14/2008 01:54 am

My take is that any FTL effect is going to be rather hard to find else we would have seen it already. The low lying fruit has been picked.


Low lying fruit such as travelling faster than light with our current technology and theory? Chemical rockets, which have been around for a thousand years? All of our high-energy efforts have been around accelerating ions and smashing them into things. Quantum physics has evolved because we have been doing that in labs. Maxwell's therorems have been expanded upon because they've been experimented with (such as varying particle acceleration). Relativity, on the other hand, hasn't changed since a certain postal worker wondered about it. It's only been confirmed... but now there are lots unanswered questions starting to pop up - like inflation and slingshot effect. And inertia is still just "becuase it's there."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/14/2008 06:43 am

My take is that any FTL effect is going to be rather hard to find else we would have seen it already. The low lying fruit has been picked.


Low lying fruit such as travelling faster than light with our current technology and theory? Chemical rockets, which have been around for a thousand years? All of our high-energy efforts have been around accelerating ions and smashing them into things. Quantum physics has evolved because we have been doing that in labs. Maxwell's therorems have been expanded upon because they've been experimented with (such as varying particle acceleration). Relativity, on the other hand, hasn't changed since a certain postal worker wondered about it. It's only been confirmed... but now there are lots unanswered questions starting to pop up - like inflation and slingshot effect. And inertia is still just "becuase it's there."

The thing to keep in mind is that slamming particles together at high energies explores a lot of the space of particle interactions and propagation. For example, it was enough to find all but one particle (the Higg's Boson) in the "Standard Model" which is the 70's era theory that unified the EM, strong, and weak forces. There are large zones of ignorance at high energies and with the interaction with gravity (and even the large scale curvature of the universe). Sure it is possible some FTL effect operates in this region, but is somehow hidden to us now, but my opinion is that it would manifest in the fundamental theory somehow.

Second,  speaking of a thousand years of rockets ignores, that until the early 20th century, rockets hadn't changed much except for improvements in solid fuel composition. The last 70 years was vastly different from the first 900+ years. Now, many rockets (for example, the SSMEs) operate near their theoretical best performance.

There's no reason to be so disrespectful of relativity. Relativity has been worked on quite a bit in the last century. For example, General Relativity came out in the mid 1910's along with the first exact solution due to Schwarzschild). Nuclear weapons were a consequence of the mass-energy relationship (E=mc^2) revealed by special relativity. Black holes were hypothesized in 1950 and continue to be refined. We've since discovered a number of black holes (well objects of the necessary density) including several at the center of our galaxy (the big one at the center and several much smaller ones orbiting it).

Antimatter is the consequence of a quantum mechanics equation for the electron derived from the energy equation in special relativity (E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2). Dirac solved it for the electron, but it required a positive charged counterpart to the electron (now called the positron). This is also the first instance of a new category of quantum theory called "quantum field theory". String theory, the Standard Model, and a number of other relatively well-known theories (for example, quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics) come out of this as well.

In addition to the theoretical consequences of the theory, there has been repeated testing of general relativity over many years. It's surprisingly successful.

Finally, I don't see any reason inertia will be explained better than it currently is. "Because it's there" is an undescriptive truism for phenomena, but that's fundamentally what reality gives you.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
In particular the single photon or electron experiments show nonlocality in BOTH space and time.

The experiment above is one of several quantum tunneling experiments falsely interpreted as demonstrating faster than light transfer of information. Nonlocality isn't sufficient for FTL. Even if part of the wave packet sometimes arrives early (in the context of the experiment), it doesn't happen in a way that can transfer information faster than the speed of light.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/14/2008 07:07 am
I don't know about virtual photons violating relativity. They are more the product of quantum mechanics and the figleafs used to sort out problems with it. Until a signal is actually sent faster than light, then I don't think quantum tunneling would be of any use. I have however seen some crackpot theories that talk about getting a craft to behave as a single electron (involving use of a Bose-Einstein Condensate) and get the whole thing to quantum tunnel all the way to Alpha Centauri.

As far as I know only the Germans are actively involved in FTL quantum tunneling research, or take it remotely seriously. However, it might actually provide a usable means of interstellar travel that could be done with 21st century technology so I won't discount it. I might give that Nimtz guy's papers a closer look.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/14/2008 07:19 am

In addition to the theoretical consequences of the theory, there has been repeated testing of general relativity over many years. It's surprisingly successful.

Finally, I don't see any reason inertia will be explained better than it currently is. "Because it's there" is an undescriptive truism for phenomena, but that's fundamentally what reality gives you.

I doubt inertia is "just there." I "feel" it has to be governed by rules, whatever they are. It was thought that the speed of light was "just there" and yet recently it's being found that it has varied. Space itself is expanding, as well (according to the relativistic view of expansion).

Now, have you any explanation for the MLT's exerted thrust in a vacuum?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/14/2008 09:06 am

In addition to the theoretical consequences of the theory, there has been repeated testing of general relativity over many years. It's surprisingly successful.

Finally, I don't see any reason inertia will be explained better than it currently is. "Because it's there" is an undescriptive truism for phenomena, but that's fundamentally what reality gives you.

I doubt inertia is "just there." I "feel" it has to be governed by rules, whatever they are. It was thought that the speed of light was "just there" and yet recently it's being found that it has varied. Space itself is expanding, as well (according to the relativistic view of expansion).

Now, have you any explanation for the MLT's exerted thrust in a vacuum?

What was allegedly found to vary was the fine structure constant which is dependent on several things including the speed of light, charge of an electron, and Planck's constant and all which are traditionally considered constant throughout space. I don't know what is the current state of this work. The expansion of space, if it is occuring, is consistent with a general relativity explanation via the "cosmological constant".

Second, it's very easy to break a vacuum especially if you have high voltages in your system. Any charge leakage or arcing would release some charged particles that you could use as propellant. That would be my first guess for an MLT having thrust in vacuum.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/15/2008 12:34 am
What was allegedly found to vary was the fine structure constant which is dependent on several things including the speed of light, charge of an electron, and Planck's constant and all which are traditionally considered constant throughout space. I don't know what is the current state of this work. The expansion of space, if it is occuring, is consistent with a general relativity explanation via the "cosmological constant".

Second, it's very easy to break a vacuum especially if you have high voltages in your system. Any charge leakage or arcing would release some charged particles that you could use as propellant. That would be my first guess for an MLT having thrust in vacuum.


As I understand it, the "cosmological constant" was derived by asking astronomers about universal expansion, which they assumed to be stationary. Einstein chucked it out when galaxies were discovered to be redshifted. It's a finicky problem and is not at all compatible with QM computations of vacuum energy (a huge positive sign is required to cancel it because of supersymmetry, etc.)

The charged particle argument has many holes. The voltages are not high enough to cause vacuum arcing. There would be a significant difference in thrust levels between in-air testing and vacuum testing. Arcing would be visible, and produce burn marks. Likewise coronal discharges would be visible. Mass loss would be in evidence. Thrust levels are comparable to dedicated ion thrusters without being specifically designed for it. The capacitors are mounted at right angles; electrostatic acceleration is sideways and would produce rotational force; the B-field would cause the charged particles to spiral outwards in all directions, nullifying thrust. Finally, thrust would be in evidence without the action of the piezolectrics (which by the way has been tested and found not to occur). I could go on, but I think that's enough.

I'm not convinced by the Mach effect; I really would like to see an apparatus levitating into the conference hall. Even then there would be many ruffled academics crying "fraud!" and "heresy!" Who cares whether it's Mach effect or Unruh effect, if it makes thrust and ejects no propellant at a rate better than a photon thruster it certainly gets my vote.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danderman on 07/16/2008 02:16 am
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$
How much?

My understanding is that the Lightcraft system would require the entire energy output of the USA to put a Mercury spacecraft mass into orbit. That would cost some $$$$.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/16/2008 06:08 am
Quote
Jim - 11/5/2008  4:00 PM

$$$$$
How much?

My understanding is that the Lightcraft system would require the entire energy output of the USA to put a Mercury spacecraft mass into orbit. That would cost some $$$$.


Not quite... using onboard LH2 a 3 tonne spacecraft (Mercury sized) could be orbited with ~3GW of laser power. Depending on conversion efficiencies that would use about 15GW; or as little as 5GW for some modern diode lasers. Assuming 30c per KWh (nuclear power) that is a maximum of $7.5M worth of electricity, going down to as little $600 000 with cheap juice and efficient lasers.

As for the lightcraft that uses lasers to superheat air as reaction mass; I really don't know how much electricity it uses. I know a smallish laser was used to propel ~100gm test articles.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Big Al on 07/19/2008 07:11 pm

How about trying an Inertial Dive Unit? Since these things are mechanical in nature, they should be easy to engineer and test. There are many patents for this type of machine, but nothing in the way of operating machinery that I know of.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: ChevalierGuard on 07/26/2008 04:29 am
The primary focus of these endeavors should be the creation of a star drive.  If not superluminal at least 80% the speed of light, which when taking consideration of the human lifespan, would allow exploration of nearby star systems.

Interesting physics, such as, zero point energy, negative energy, action at a distance, quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation exist and is a fact. It is applying what we know, and developing engineering technology to access and control these physical phenomena.  Zero point energy can theoretically be accessed but the technology doesn't exist to harness it.  Negative energy has been created in the laboratory, but no viable use is present.

A Manhattan type of endeavor is required to create and develop the technologies at a mature level in order to produce the star drive.  This means Mega funding and choosing the right people.  People who have vision, young and old, and are dedicated to the problem. Not nine to five types or Academic stars.  Also, this project will require help from American companies with specialized engineering skills when new technology is created or maturing.

Considering some computer models of drive systems, a presence on the moon may be required to test these novel technologies. 

To create a star drive requires teamwork, dedication, vision, and risk taking.

thank you for your time,
CG



Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/27/2008 05:52 am
We need to have a usable effect first. No one has extracted energy from zero point energy (and according to many theories, you can't). Energy (at least according to what we know) can't be created or destroyed. And the various manifestations of quantum correlation like entanglement, action at a distance, quantum teleportation, etc don't give us either a way to go faster or an energy source aside from what we know.

Here's how I see it. While a design for a usable star drive would be interesting, it doesn't solve any of the big problems with current space development. Namely, it doesn't make Earth to orbit cheaper, it doesn't greatly expand business opportunities in space, or help people live in space. It certainly doesn't justify spending tens of billions of dollars (the equivalent of a Manhattan Project).

Second, it seems to me far easier to focus on increasng human lifespan rather than working on traveling 80% of the speed of light. The latter requires considerable energy. Currently, we don't have a way to store or use that energy. I take into account  zero point energy, antimatter, and black holes (none of which we can harness in any serious way). Nothing else, that I currently know of, would have the necessary energy density).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 07/27/2008 12:37 pm
The primary focus of these endeavors should be the creation of a star drive.  If not superluminal at least 80% the speed of light, which when taking consideration of the human lifespan, would allow exploration of nearby star systems.

Setting unrealistic goals like this is a perfect way to spend heaps of money with no result at all.

Quote
Interesting physics, such as, zero point energy, negative energy, action at a distance, quantum entanglement and quantum teleportation exist and is a fact.

From what I know, it's much worse than that. Only zero point energy and quantum entanglement are known to exist, the rest is at the bleeding edge (i.e. it may turn out to not exist/not work at all).

Quote
A Manhattan type of endeavor is required to create and develop the technologies at a mature level in order to produce the star drive.

Manhattan project was based on a relatively well known (by that time) physics and was solving mostly technological problems (which were very difficult). For "star drive" project to be even possible, we need to research physics first.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: ChevalierGuard on 07/28/2008 01:01 am
Good Evening Gentlemen... Interesting answers to say the least... 

Let's clarify the physics,

Real Physics not SCIFI.

a) negative energy has been created in the lab (Fact);
b) Teleportation at the atomic level has been achieved (Bell Labs)
c)Laser Wakefield beams have been created (accelerators the size of table tops) Naval Research Lab TeraWatt level..
Virtual particles created based on Quantum Electrodynamics confirmed.
d)Quantum entanglement at a huge distance (Experiment verified and confirmed Los Alamos)
e)Antimatter confinement possible though hugely expensive at the moment.  Antihydrogen has been made..
f) Zero point energy confirmed; huge technological barrier due to thermodynamic leakage.
g)matter beam amplification thru bose einstein condensate experimentally confirmed..
h) theta pinch plasma drive under development (NASA)...

Some computer models show that metric can be manipulated.  However, tremendous energy is required.

Profitability:
a) Every dollar spent would have a return similar to the Apollo program.
b)The materials, engineering services, support infrastructure, etc would drive the economy.
c) If star drive built, and habitable planets found  with Terrestial Planet Finder, economic stimulus would be huge.  Remember history, ships sent out to Americas, China, Japan, for spices, gold and goods? Unimaginable wealth.
d) Unforseen benefits..

The Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program has somewhat separated the crackpots from the real investigators. 

Gentleman, our govt has spent billions on reduntant equipment, causes, and wars. 
A five pound grey piece of flesh named Von Braun took us to the moon, another lump open the way we look at the universe Mr Einstein, and two lumps gave us airplanes.

By the way, not all scientists were convinced that the first Atomic Bomb wouldn't cause a chain reaction to destroy the world.  Leap of Faith?

Thank you for your time,

CG
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 07/28/2008 07:28 am
a) negative energy has been created in the lab (Fact);

Link?

Quote
b) Teleportation at the atomic level has been achieved (Bell Labs)

IIRC it basically transferred quantum state from one atom to another, with speed of less than c - so what does it give us? I don't doubt usefulness of this research, but it does not show something extraordinary (FTL travel or similar). Again, link?

Quote
c)Laser Wakefield beams have been created (accelerators the size of table tops) Naval Research Lab TeraWatt level..
Virtual particles created based on Quantum Electrodynamics confirmed.
d)Quantum entanglement at a huge distance (Experiment verified and confirmed Los Alamos)
e)Antimatter confinement possible though hugely expensive at the moment.  Antihydrogen has been made..
g)matter beam amplification thru bose einstein condensate experimentally confirmed..

None of the above looks like "star drive enabler" to me (although it may be a part of it).

Quote
f) Zero point energy confirmed; huge technological barrier due to thermodynamic leakage.
h) theta pinch plasma drive under development (NASA)...

Links?

Quote
Some computer models show that metric can be manipulated.  However, tremendous energy is required.

Yep, one patent office worker actually discovered it like 85 years ago... just make massive object of precalculated shape and metric around/inside it will change accordingly...

Quote
Profitability:
a) Every dollar spent would have a return similar to the Apollo program.
b)The materials, engineering services, support infrastructure, etc would drive the economy.

We don't have enough theoretical knowledge. Some of things you cited are interesting and are a stepping stones to better knowledge of physics, but they are nowhere close to actual "star drive" technology. Manhattan project people, on the contrary, already had quite good theoretical grasp on what they are trying to do, and it still costed astronomical money to actually make it work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 07/29/2008 01:53 am
Let's also keep in mind that the Manhattan Project was suboptimal in terms of value for money spent. If US and its allies had had considerable time, they could have found more efficient ways to fund atomic bomb development. A slower pace means cheaper effort overall, I think.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/16/2008 06:02 am
This is a really interesting thread.  It's disappointing that it was disturbed by so many off topic comments and red herrings.  If I may, I'd like to share a perspective that I hope might be useful.  I'll understand if all our friends at JSC are busy elsewhere, putting their lives back in order after the storm.  Best wishes. . .

For space travel to come into anything like a "Golden Age" as did Earth, sea and air travel; it has to be 4 things: safe, quick, convenient and economical.  These should be a bare minimum requirement.  Also there's a concomitant observation here, that "golden age" space travel does not require FTL travel.  I for one would be happy with a "1 gee solution" where we could get from place to place around our planetary system while constantly accelerating at 1 gee.  Accelerate half way to the Moon at 1 gee (Earth gee), turn around and accelerate negatively the second half of the way--you can be on the Moon in less time than it takes to fly from NY to LA, you can be to Mars at its closest approach in 2 days, or at its greatest distance in 5 days, or to the asteroids in 6, or to Jupiter in 7, or to Saturn, it's pretty moon Titan and a view of the rings in 9 days.  That is mastery of this planetary system so long as it is relatively safe, quick, convenient and economical.

There's only one option mentioned in this thread that holds out this possibility and it is the gravinertial engineering happening with the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) explained by Space-Drive and as L-M has been well aware of for years.

There were only a few objections to this found in this thread.  If I may paraphrase:

1) Woodward must be measuring ion wind.

Rubbish.  His thruster creates the same thrust in air as it does in hard vacuum and everywhere between.  It's very well insulated and doesn't create ion wind.  He has also taken adequate precautions to show that he is not getting electrostatic or magnetic coupling, that no thermal effects are unaccounted for, etc.  Anyone can have access to his work.  None of it is done in a corner.  He invites all comers to be involved in his process about which he generally updates a very large list of guys like the people posting in this thread; so they can contribute however they like and see he does only good science.  Anyone who wants to take the time to read the relevant literature, get up to speed on the research and be involved is invited to do so.

2) The MLT doesn't produce enough thrust. 

Okay.  "Enough thrust" is pretty subjective.  Woodward is certainly producing thrusts more than an order magnitude above the noise floor of his test apparatus and he is working to develop a "demonstrator" that should end a lot of these sorts of objections.  However, I personally don't see how people unfamiliar with his work can say that his test items don't produce enough thrust.  Isn't that like saying you don't like bree cheese without ever having tasted it?

3)  This is a violation of GR. 

It is not.  It is also not a violation of any of the conservation laws.  Unlike the Shawyer devise mentioned early in this thread, it is based upon likely physics; whereas Shawyer really is asking everyone to forget about conservation of momentum.  Woodward has been published in peer reviewed journals for more than a decade and there are no objections outstanding.  People who object to his physics are generally folks who not only have not studied GR, they have not studied Mach's Principle and they are not familiar with any of the theory published over the years--basically, your envious QM guys who wish they had the answers Woodward seems to.

4)  It won't give us FTL travel. 

Well, this is true.  The MLT cannot ever produce FTL.  However, it is based upon a relatively unexplored (though 100 year old) area of physics, mastery of which could easily produce things like warp drive and wormhole travel.  That's a bit off for now.  First it would be nice to have impulse engines before we work on warp drive so, it's not much of an objection that Woodward's current work is not on FTL travel.  However, the gravinertial theory and engineering being developed now by Woodward et. al. is just exactly the stuff we need to understand how to make warp drives and traversable wormholes in the future.  And there simply is not another player worth watching.

5)  It's going to be so inefficient that it will be impractical.

No actually.  It could easily prove to be so efficient that it can provide its own energy source.  Now please, everyone wait for me to explain.

Space-Drive mentioned that in order to rectify periodic mass fluctuation into a unified and therefore useful force, the MLT essentially pushes heavy and pulls light.  That's the name of the game.  When the mass temporarily fluctuates up, you push on it.  When it fluctuates down, you pull on it.  There is never a violation in conservation involved because the mass-energy/momentum is being transferred back and forth between the active mass in the thruster and the rest of the universe.  The mass of the universe never changes nor does its momentum.  Woodward is just using a "sneaky trick" by pushing and pulling on the temporarily fluctuated mass in his ceramic.  When he does this, he is actually stealing momentum from the causally connected universe and putting it to better use.  In this case, the universe is the system to consider as a closed system so far as doing conservation balancing is concerned and the MLT is the great beneficiary of the system--not so different from the instance of walking.  When you walk West, our planet turns slightly slower West, but no one notices.

What Star-Drive did not mention is that Woodward is only creating fluctuations of less than 100%.  Others have driven their test items further and teams are working now to do this in the future.  What does it mean to drive an MLT past a 100% mass fluctuation or dm>m condition?  Well, we think it means that temporarily, the reactive mass in such a thruster would be negative mass with negative inertia.  If this is true (seems it is) and obtainable (there are already test items that have appeared to do this though that datum is inconclusive for lack of test controls--these tests were not run by Woodward in his vacuum chamber on his ARC Lite balance) then MLT's not only can be constructed to be fantastically efficient, they can even be used to harvest gravinertial energy used to run other MLT's and push spacecraft.  That means rangeless spacecraft (so far as the propulsion systems are concerned) and also holds out promise in the future to develop cheap energy, warp drives and traversable wormholes.

And these possibilities make all the time and attention you might invest in understanding Woodward's work, worth the effort.  IMHO
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 09/16/2008 09:08 am
Several comments. First, conservation of energy is going to keep your system's overall mass-energy from changing. The idea as I understand it, is that you charge up a capacitor, increasing its mass slightly, push, then discharge the cap, reducing its mass slightly, and pull. The problem is that the energy of the capacitor has to go somewhere. Since you want to periodically charge the capacitor, you either need enough power on hand to charge it at the desired frequency, or you store the energy elsewhere in your vehicle. In the former case, you probably would generate more thrust by shining a laser or even selectively radiating heat to one side.

In the latter case, I don't see evidence that the system is open and hence capable of generating a net thrust. For example, I see a net force generated when you move energy from one capacitor to another storage device (be it a capacitor, inductor, or whatever). My take is that the forces induced by moving this energy around will counter the net force of this device. Having said this, we probably can as in a number of other proposed propellantless propulsion technologies generate a net torque and rotate an object with this setup.

Second, this device is extremely inefficient and we have no way, currently, of charging a capacitor to the degree that makes interesting thrust (according to the model). Maybe a large scale (on the order of kilometers or larger) would do since the thrust is apparently proportional to the square of the voltage difference across the capacitor and how much voltage you can charge before the capacitor arcs is proportional to the size of the capacitor.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/16/2008 06:03 pm
Hi Karl.  These are thoughtful remarks here.  Short responses:

". . .conservation will keep the system's mass-energy from changing"

Yes.  but the MLT's "system" includes all of the universe so this is not unexpected.  The thruster participates in a momentum exchange with the entire, causally connected universe.

"The idea as I understand it, is that you charge up a capacitor, increasing its mass slightly, push, then discharge the cap, reducing its mass slightly, and pull. The problem is that the energy of the capacitor has to go somewhere."

This is close, however; the MLT actually has two push phases and two pull phases for each complete cycle.  This is why Star-Drive mentioned we look for the second harmonic signature of the ac applied.  As to the energy going somewhere, in the ac signal to the caps and coils, well, that's a matter of impedance matching.  When done properly, the system can be remarkably efficient.  I think you have in mind instead, something like a dc system and that would be inefficient but happily, we're using ac sign waves and once matched the source and load form a rather elegant couple.

I'm not sure why you are saying this system is inefficient.  You obviously have not read any of the relevant literature.  Thrust efficiency scales to the quartic, not quadratic; power of applied voltage.  This is one of the things that makes an authentic Mach Effect signal identifiable, it scales to the 4th power of input voltage.  And I can tell you, it is not inefficient.  MLT thrust also scales with the cube of frequency and Dr. Woodward is only dabbling in the kHz range for now because he doesn't want to explore the whole new set of variables introduced once one enters "wormhole territory" or goes to dm>m.

Once you are producing negative mass for any length period of time, and lets remember, negative mass has negative inertia--it will appear to violate normal physics and self accelerate--the scaling effects are harder to predict.  So Woodward is working at low ultrasonic frequencies to avoid dm>m.  However, guys like Paul March are designing to run in the MHz range with mass fluctuations well over 3 million %.  This should actually draw more momentum and energy from the gravinertial field than it takes to run the devise, and make it appear to be an "overunity" devise.  Obviously, it is not truly "overunity" because it's system includes the entire universe and the system's net energy does not increase.  However, the MLT is harvesting both energy and momentum and from its beneficiaries' point of view (ours) it appears like an overunity thruster.  It should be able to produce net energy simply by attaching it to a generator, for example.

So no, none of this is anything like inefficient and I encourage you to look at the actual literature.  It's worth your time.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 09/17/2008 09:07 am
Quote
So no, none of this is anything like inefficient and I encourage you to look at the actual literature.  It's worth your time.

do you have a link or can you suggest some papers?  I have found only this page until now:

http://www.woodwardeffect.org/

It contains all presentations from Woodwards homepage too (AFAIK)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/17/2008 07:48 pm
I think it's always best to poke around and see for yourself as it's hard for me to suggest anything without knowing what your skill set is, your specific interests etc.  However, I will admit that I like this:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/staif2000.pdf

from here:

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

as well as the link at the top of page 3 in this thread.  Anyone who wants to pursue an interest a bit further can let me know and I'll have you put on the open email distribution where you can make connections for other things like papers that are not posted on the web.  For instance, much of the writing and presenting on MLT tech the last few years has been at the Space Technologies and Applications International Forum (STAIF) and those papers cannot, because of IP issues; simply be posted on the web.  They can however be shared privately and they are certainly fascinating.  Also I should mention that the cutting edge news will certainly be presented at the Space Propulsion and Energy Sciences International Forum this coming February:

http://www.ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 09/22/2008 02:36 pm
Hi GI-Thruster;

thank you for the inks. The link to the SPESIF conference was new for me. Will this conference replace STAIF? The content seems to be the same, especially section F.   

I find the paper from paul marchs STAIF 2007 presentation quite fascinating. Most of the math is above my head (I'm only a normal air-and space technology engineer working in development and production as a materials & process engineer) but field propulsion technologies (Heim Drive, Woodward) are a scientific field which caught my attention years ago because normal rocket propulsion (even orion style nuclear pulse propulsion) will open "only" the solar system for exploration and chemical rocket propulsion will allow us only to reach mars, nothing more. So for me field propulsion seem the only way forward.

http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/STAIF-2007%20MLT%20Powered%20Spacecraft-Final-3.1_W-O%20Appendix.ppt

One thing I find part fascinating and part strange because of the coincidence is that the company EESTOR develops at the moment large bariumtitanate capacitors to store large amounts of electricity. The same material and structure(?) seems to be beneficial for a high performance MLT-Thruster too.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/26/2008 04:12 am
Yes, SPESIF is indeed replacing STAIF now that that historic conference that ran, was it 25 or 35 years? is now at an end.  SPECIF is in fact being organized by some of the same folks who ran STAIF section F, like NASA' s Tony Robertson and I believe Paul Murad is still involved as well.  I don't know because I haven't asked but I suspect people like Dr. James Woodward from CS Fullerton and Dr. Eric Davis from EarthTech will continue to chair the conferences.

The EESTOR caps are indeed very interesting technology.  If it delivers as claimed, they will have about the same energy density as very good LiPo batteries but have such a large power density that they can be charged in just a few minutes and be at least an order of magnitude cheaper than batteries.  Just the sort of stuff we need for electric cars.  However, I doubt they would be the best choice for an MLT.  EESTOR has a very unusual construction technique in mind that is unlike normal sintering of BaTiO3 caps and certainly not a single crystal so it may not work in an MLT.  Guess we'll have to wait and see!  Paul March is currently working on a high Q Teflon cap design and it may be possible to use several other sorts of materials like electrostrictors (PMN-PT), magnetostrictors (Terfenol-D) and even some dielectric elastomers which would certainly break the price barrier for materials as these couldn't be cheaper.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/26/2008 07:15 am
The MLT thrusters are certainly interesting, and although I know nothing about high-K materials and general relativity, I will be cheering from the sidelines.

To khallow, yes the engine may be inefficient, but at the moment it's (a) a long way from reaching maturation and (b) doesn't dump any propellant. I'm willing to bet that the total impulse and produced by these things is in a nuclear-electric scheme is more than what you would get from a direct thermionic or fission fragment setup for the same quantity of fuel.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 09/26/2008 09:43 am
Yes, SPESIF is indeed replacing STAIF now that that historic conference that ran
This is a new agency?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/26/2008 03:58 pm
I wouldn't call STAIF or SPESIF an "agency."  They're just professional conferences.  STAIF came out of the nuke industry and was run in Albuquerque, NM for more than 25 years.  I was at the last conference and ought to remember just how many years because there was a "so long--see ya!" ceremony but I just don't remember.

STAIF section F has been a significant support to futures concepts, especially propulsion for several years.  It was the black sheep member of STAIF that many tended to look down on.  However, it was certainly the most exciting section in the conference.  Well, section F will live on at the new SPESIF conference held in Huntsville AL starting this coming February.  Keep an eye out and if you can afford the time, try to attend!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 09/26/2008 04:14 pm
Looking at this more carefully, I'd have to disagree on the MLT.  First, the explanation (as I understand it) for the thrust appears wrong. As I understand it, the claim is that the engine is pushing against existing gravitational fields from distant objects (Mach's principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle) effectively). But it works just the same in the absence of other matter, that is, even in situations where Mach's principle wouldn't apply. That indicates to me that the momentum (of the thrust claimed to be produced) would be transfered by a combination of gravitation waves and electromagnetic waves (photons). A dipole like a capacitor should generate some EM waves, I think, but I'm not clear on what directions they'd be propagating in. I suspect that they would be orthogonal to the direction of thrust though. So we're probably speaking of a way to produce gravity waves biased towards some direction opposite the desired thrust direction.

Second, the model doesnt' include thrust from current flows. If I discharge one capacitor and charge a second, my take is that current flow (net flow will be from first capacitor to second capacitor) will generate some amount of thrust. And for a model like this one, some of that thrust will be counter to the desired thrust direction. My concern is that we have a net zero (linear) thrust engine as a result.

A further indication that this might be the case is the experiment setup described in one of the linked papers above. I'll repost for clarification:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/staif2000.pdf

After the paper proper, there is the set of figures. Figure 6 shows the experiment. The equipment is suspended by a thin wire which is the axis that the experiment rotates around and two er thrusters are mounted so that they push in the same rotation direction with the wire as an axis, but opposite directions for linear (translational) force. Such an experiment generates torsion (rotation force) not linear force. Also, it appears that power is fed in from above the system. So we may be missing a key component of the overall forces on the system.

An improvement on the engine would have both thrusters on one side, pointing in the same direction, while an appropriate nonconductive counterweight rests on the opposite arm to balance the engine. Systemwide, this still just measures torque of the entire apparatus, but the thrusters would have to be generating net thrust in order for net torque to be observed.

In my humble opinion, the experiment needs to have everything including the power supply on this arm. If there is net thrust under those circumstances, then we have a winner. Glancing at the experiment, I don't see fault with the rest of the experiment, just placement of the capacitors and the power supply (or at least a good justification for why one can remove the power supply).

Finally, there has been some talk about being able to produce energy from the MLT in an extreme operating regime without an explanation for where that energy comes from (remember it works even in the absence of a gravitational field). I think this just indicates that the model doesn't work in that regime.

Here's the reason why. Whenever you have a possible process that produces energy from a system, you need to ask yourself if the process appears in nature. If it does, then you're set. If it doesn't, then you need to explain why the process doesn't appear. As far as I know, we don't observe energy releases of this form. My take is that the mechanism for creating energy here is simple enough that we probably should be seeing anomalous energy production in extremely energetic events and locations like supernova, neutron stars, black holes, etc. While that doesn't indicate that the overall model is flawed in the regime we're really interested in, it is a warning sign.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/26/2008 05:25 pm
Karl, I appreciate your interest here but I want to recommend again that you look at the literature. 

Sonny White at NASA's Johnson Space Center has a ZPF based theory about why these test items produce thrust that is an unrelated explanation for the thrust--unrelated to Mach's Principle.  However, that maverick explanation aside, no.  MLT thrust cannot be explained apart from holding Mach's Principle.  In fact, all the MLT's UFG's and rotators being built are considered to be providing empirical evidence for Machian physics.  So whatever understanding you have that these items ought to work whether Mach is right or wrong are certainly misunderstandings.

You can also forget about gravitational waves, etc.  Mach's principle states that inertia is the direct result of all the mass in the universe's gravitational effects on its various parts.  It is in fact chiefly the farthest mass that is the source of the GI field or Far Off Active Matter (FOAM).  If this theory behind inertia's origin is wrong, the thrusters will not work (except unless Sonny White's explanation obtains, which is its own issue.)

I'm not sure how to address your other points and I don't want to treat them flippantly.  On your complaints about how the wire pendulum ought to have been designed, I'm not sure I see your point.  If both thrusters were to have been placed on one side of the wire, and an inactive mass on the other to balance it, this would simply have made any observation harder to make for surely, we would have twice the mass and the same thrust.  Since F=MA, this would just make for a less sensitive design.

However, let me remind that this design was built without funding on Tom Mahood's checkbook for his Master's Thesis.  It was designed to be simple, cheap and demonstrate force.  It succeeded brilliantly a decade ago and that work is now long over.  After that followed work using the U-80 load cell and following that, the current high fidelity equipment was put in place, the ARC Lite thrust balance.  The ARC Lite is truly a world class piece of test equipment.  If you want to object to equipment and protocols, I would suggest you look at the current designs as surely, past work that is not being repeated is not worth objecting to at all.  Though, I think it's noteworthy that the cheap wire pendulum did demonstrate thrust and there still exists to this day, the videos that show this.

Final observation for you to consider, Karl.  I don't know your background but you're obviously very bright and latching onto serious issues even when you haven't yet been fully informed.  Let me just say that the likelyhood you will find a serious objection that obtains with a minor investment of time and energy is very unlikely.

Dr. Woodward's Ph.D. is in the history of gravity physics.  He's an educator and experimentalist who taught physics for decades at California State University at Fullerton and still runs a lab there.  His team is composed of many of the most brilliant minds in engineering and physics available today, Oxford Ph.D.'s and NASA engineers all looking over Woodward's shoulder to see he only does good science.  You're invited to get up to speed and join the team if you like.  However, I would suggest to you that before you make an objection, you invest the time to understand the work.  I assure you this will be worth all the effort.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kraisee on 09/26/2008 06:05 pm
From what I've read so far I'm still skeptical about any claims of thrust without propellant, but I am quite interested in knowing for sure before writing anything off.

What interests me is what it will take to actually prove this one way or the other?

How big an experiment (physical size and cost) is going to be needed to prove or dispel this once and for all?

Ross.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/26/2008 06:25 pm
Ross, I'm a philosopher by training so I think I can speak to the issue of what constitutes  proof.  In a nutshell, all "proof" is an illusion.

All we can hope for is evidence that is sufficiently compelling that those interested in seeing the work get funded will indeed be compelled.  And to be frank about it, there have already been plenty of people step forward and want to provide funding.  Dr. Woodward always turns them down.

What we need is a "demonstrator" that produces enough thrust that people like Dr. Woodward and agencies like DARPA are so convinced that they take action.  A $50 million grant from DARPA would put hundreds or thousands of engineers and physicists to work and we'd be on the road to a viable technology.  Until there's a demonstrator, we're not going to see this sort of funding.

You want my guess how long until we see such a demonstration?  Three months.  Six tops.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 09/26/2008 08:59 pm
FWIW

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/26/2008 09:45 pm
My trouble with this story is that it's a story at all.  This is clearly a defense technology.  If the Chinese were pursuing it with anything remotely resembling serious hope, I doubt we'd be hearing about it.  Lets remember, they don't have our separation between civil and military organization when it comes to aerospace spending and they don't pay for intellectual properties.  They just take them, so there's no reason for them to cooperate with Shawyer.  Sonny White and Paul March didn't need Shawyer's cooperation to do a Shawyer replication and it failed.  I think this is a red herring.
 
I'm sticking with my guns.  I think China probably has an MLT program that is at least 2 years in advance of ours.  The Chinese commitment to leadership in space would make that a no-brainer, since the MLT papers published a few years ago must have gotten their attention.  And they have money to burn.  Their engineers get paid less than our kids working the counter at Burger King.  With resources so cheap, I'd bet they have people working on Jack Sarfatti's Weightless Warp Drive notions and one has to suppose they hope Baker's gravity wave stuff can be adapted for propulsion.  They're already funding the communications end of things.
 
Before the fall of Rome, the Romans taught their barbarian cousins how to store food in silos so they wouldn't go hungry each winter and starve after each poor harvest.  That was the beginning of the end.  The empire fell from without.  But it also fell from within through lack of commitment to the future--lot like what we have here, now in the US.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/26/2008 09:57 pm
Who was that masked man?!

Well, that was Paul March.

Paul, is there anywhere people here can look at your WarpStar paper or the Horizon's version?

We need to get as many homegrown engineers and physicists up to speed on your work as possible.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/26/2008 10:25 pm
>This glow discharge kept us from reaching the internal E&M field conditions in the resonant cavity needed to match those reported by Shawyer by over two orders of magnitude, so we could not make any comment on the validity of Shawyer’s work from our failed experiment, and neither should you.

I agree.  My point was that you and Sonny were certainly able to follow Shawyer's work without his help and so can the Chinese.  If the Chinese were seriously involved in this work, we would not be reading about it on Wired.  It would be a Chinese "Black Project" we never hear about, just as I'm propsing is what is happening with the MLT.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 09/27/2008 07:13 pm
GI-Thruster and Star-Drive, I believe my proposed experiment would be somewhat harder to do, but it would determine whether the device can generate linear thrust as opposed to torque.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/08/2008 05:08 am
I have some naive questions for you:

Looking at the Machian mass fluctuation equation,

dm0 = 1 / 4piG [1/p0c^2 dP/dt - (1/p0c^2)^2 P^2/V]

So you need to increase delivered power, reduce pulse time and decrease capacitor volume. What about p0? Is that rho, as in density?

Would low atomic weight ions be a better choice for the capacitor, instead of titanium ions like in the barium titanate? Titanium is also weakly paramagnetic... is this an issue with using magnetic fields to oscillate the capacitor?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 10/08/2008 02:25 pm
Paul, this sounds great! Do you issue preprints (say on Arxiv.org)?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/14/2008 06:44 am
Lampyridae:

p0 is the rest mass density of the dielectric in question.  The Mach-Effect mass fluctuations magnitude in an MLT are proportional to the applied voltage cubed, the operating frequency cubed, the dielectric constant squared, and inversely proportional with the MLT's cap dielectric's density.  The MLT's unidirectional force output is proportional to the magnitude of the mass fluctuations, the applied B-field, times the sine of the Cap's E-field vector relative to the applied B-field vector when the excitation signal is a sine wave.  In other words when the applied E-field and B-field are parallel to each other, you get zero thrust.  When they are 90 degrees out of phase you get maximum thrust.  And when you flip the B-field vector 180 degrees so it's -90 degrees relative to the E-field you get maximum thrust in the opposite direction.  Nothing like being able to back up a spaceship!

OK, thanks for that clarification. My maths is kinda rusty so it took a while! Look forward to hearing updates from you guys. Especially the 1kN test article (did I read that right?).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/23/2008 06:07 am
This QVF / MHD plasma drive concept escapes me at the moment - I haven't seen any paperwork on it. I can see how e/p flux could be used as propellant, but how do phonons propagate this energy? What does Dark Energy have to do with everything?

Spent nearly an hour trying to find anything by or on Dr. Harold White and all I got was that paper on metric engineering.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 10/23/2008 01:20 pm
This QVF / MHD plasma drive concept escapes me at the moment - I haven't seen any paperwork on it. I can see how e/p flux could be used as propellant, but how do phonons propagate this energy? What does Dark Energy have to do with everything?

QVF ~ ZPE. And ZPE somehow interacts with Dark matter itself. The MHD drives the whole conversion process and turns it into propellantless thrust. In the end you've got an engine that is far superior to the impulse drive of Enterprise, because it uses a vast outer energy supply. Now you get the picture?  With a working QVF / MHD plasma drive we could explore and colonize Sol very fast.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 10/23/2008 02:02 pm
I can't find any online reference to a Dr. Harold (Sonny) White. Does anyone have a reference to him or a paper that I can look up?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/24/2008 04:55 am
This QVF / MHD plasma drive concept escapes me at the moment - I haven't seen any paperwork on it. I can see how e/p flux could be used as propellant, but how do phonons propagate this energy? What does Dark Energy have to do with everything?

QVF ~ ZPE. And ZPE somehow interacts with Dark matter itself. The MHD drives the whole conversion process and turns it into propellantless thrust. In the end you've got an engine that is far superior to the impulse drive of Enterprise, because it uses a vast outer energy supply. Now you get the picture?  With a working QVF / MHD plasma drive we could explore and colonize Sol very fast.

How does QVF interact with Dark Matter, Dark Energy or whatever? It sounds like there are electrons and positrons spinning around in a cycloid pattern inside an MHD nozzle. A 100MHz RF field pumps them, creating phonons in the plasma cycloid. These phonons are then somehow coupled to a thrust structure (MHD nozzle?). Somehow 1.4KW of input power are translated into 1000N of thrust. Which translates to a virtual Isp of about 28s. Which means, if I got my maths right, that there is a virtual mass flow rate of about 3kg/s. How is the virtual mass being created?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/24/2008 06:23 am
Quote
With a working QVF/MHD drive you not only have an impulse drive that is better than the Star Trek Enterprise's propulsion system by the same name, you also have the heart of the warp drive that will open up the galaxy for all of us as well.  The ZPE AKA Dark Energy field energy balance required to perform this spacetime bending trick is nicely tucked away in White's published derivations and his unpublished presentations that Sonny has passed around to the NASA/JSC propulsion community willing to listen.  Alas, when Dr. Griffin at NASA Headquarters said "no new propulsion research will be tolerated at NASA while the Ares rockets are under development" back in 2005, he meant every word of it.  So we trudge on, on our own nickel, until we can float in the first MLT or QVF/MHD prototypes into Dr. Griffin's office. 

If you do, please film it so we can see the reaction on his face!

Quote
The reason we have to evoke phonons in the Dirac e/p sea of transient QM e/p pairs is their very short (Plank time scales) life times that they are present in our universe, since they are semi-virtual particles by their definition in QM.  However, just like the lack of electrons in a p-type semiconductor otherwise known as P-type charge "holes", they can transmit energy through the p-type semiconductor.   These transient e/p pairs can also set up momentum waves in the Dirac e/p sea that can and do transmit momentum from the local disturbance to the distance matter in the universe that set up this transient e/p sea to begin with in zero time since they are all thought to be QM entangled.

Ahhh, now I see why you have phonons. Wow, that is really out of the box thinking to invoke it in QVF. I wonder if this... semiconductor-like property could be used in other ways? Vacuum circuitry? Star-Trek "plasma conduits?" (LOL!) FTL communication? The mind boggles.

So... in rough layman terms... the drive expels a virtual QVF plasma causally connected to a sphere 13 billion lightyears in radius? But that's not how I understand entanglement to work. Err, no, wait... it's just a vacuum fluctuation and you can't tell it's been altered until you have some signal to compare it to.

Sheesh, I need to do some more homework. But thanks for the explanation, Star-Drive. Are any of you guys getting donations for these projects? Seems downright expensive to be doing it on your own.

*EDIT* You mention space-time bending. Could this produce an artificial gravity well? So we could enjoy Star Trek accelerations without becoming meat jam on the aft bulkhead?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 10/24/2008 11:17 am
How does QVF interact with Dark Matter, Dark Energy or whatever?
ZPE/QVF are the basics of Dark Energy and it's behaviour. Because we use all this terms (ZPE/QVF, Dark Matter, Dark Energy) to describe the same thing - another fundamental force that is yet to be discovered. Haven't you asked yourself how many fundamental forces do exist?
We know about four of them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
but they are not enough to explain why astronomers have found galaxies that are moving away from each other and away from us rather than moving close and collide. So, there is another force that acts oposite of gravity and causes this expansion. During Big Bang the universe has expanded faster than c, the spacetime itself has expanded faster than the speed of light.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 10/24/2008 03:13 pm
The effect described by "dark energy" is not a distinct force. It is a property of the shape of the universe (which in turn is dictated by physical law and mass-energy flow through that space). We can incorporate it into the force of gravity by a nonzero cosmological constant. What is speculated to be going on is that the interaction between gravity and the other three forces results in this very small expansion of the universe.

The "inflation phase" of the Big Bang can be approximated as I understand it by a larger cosmological constant. My guess is that that part was due to heavy repulsion of the dense early universe due to the strong force. But the expansion was not locally faster than the speed of light. Distant parts of the universe (under this model) would slide off our horizon, but that doesn't mean that they are moving away from us faster than light. It means that the space in between is expanding sufficiently fast that light from that point can no longer reach us here. The length of the path grows faster in time than the speed of light.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 10/24/2008 05:45 pm
"The reason we have to evoke phonons in the Dirac e/p sea of transient QM e/p pairs is their very short (Plank time scales) life times that they are present in our universe, since they are semi-virtual particles by their definition in QM.  However, just like the lack of electrons in a p-type semiconductor otherwise known as P-type charge "holes", they can transmit energy through the p-type semiconductor.   These transient e/p pairs can also set up momentum waves in the Dirac e/p sea that can and do transmit momentum from the local disturbance to the distance matter in the universe that set up this transient e/p sea to begin with in zero time since they are all thought to be QM entangled."

StarDrive, just to be clear with everyone, this is really the question your work should answer.  We don't yet know these virtual particles can transfer momentum.  There are some who presume they can and others that they cannot.  Certainly the best way to answer the question is design, build and run a thruster and see if indeed it creates thrust!

Godspeed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 10/25/2008 04:47 am
Awesome thread. Leading Edge Theoretical Physics Hypothesizing without any kookery. NASA should be funding these attempts, they may not pan out, but they should be trying at least. Hopefully the next President will appoint an Administrator who is less of a Philistine.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/30/2008 05:05 am
Well, with the rumblings in the beltway, I think that may be the case. Fingers crossed. I'm sure the DoD is quietly conducting its own experiments on this, but you can rest assured they won't be for public consumption. :P

Star-Drive, is there a diagram available illustrating how the QVF thruster works, or a design?

At the moment, I'm just guessing at how this all fits together. I'm just digesting stuff on vacuum energy and pair production (oh how shallow my physics knowledge is...). But the e/p pairs do have an influence thanks to vacuum polarisation. What purpose does the 100 MHz RF generator therefore have? How does it set up phonons in the e/p plasma? I gather it would pull them apart and make them dipoles for a little bit longer before they annihilate.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 10/30/2008 01:46 pm

You have to view the universe as a 13.7 x 2 = 27.4 billion light year diameter spherical gravinertial resonant cavity that expanded from the big bang nexus where all spacetime, energy and the nuclear particles to come were all in the same quantum state at the starting gate, think super cooled helium-II, and therefore entangled QM wise.  Can we still claim this entangled state still exists for the ZPE Dirac-Sea of semi-virtual e/p pairs?  This question can only be determined by experimental data that tells us WHY inertial effects are instantaneous in nature.

As I (or for that matter, any classical observer) see it, the answer is  "no". However it happened, the above entangled system of the universe has collapsed, if only due to our classical observations. Further, if general relativity is accurate, inertial effects are not instantaneous. And if the universe is open (which is the current opinion of cosmology), then there is no resonance. Keep in mind further, that we only see part of the universe, just what is in the past of our light cone. The universe could well be infinite in spatial extent as well as time.

I find the explanations given above for quantum vacuum fluctuation (QVF) based propulsion to be rather dubious. Here's my take. The Woodward drive (the one with the vibrating charging/discharging capacitors seems to have some potential (assuming my concern is unfounded and it can generate thrust not just torque). There is a measurable effect there and can be explained reasonably as radiating either EM or gravity waves, both which can transfer momentum. The Casimir effect is the only known way to extract energy from vacuum (by letting a series of sheets "stick" to each other). I don't know of any way currently to use the Casimir effect to directly generate thrust, but there's probably a weak effect somewhere.

But finding some sort of oscillation of the universe (which we haven't seen yet!) and exploiting that seems a higher level problem. One which may not be solvable merely because no such oscillation exists.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 11/01/2008 06:25 pm
Karl,

>The Woodward drive (the one with the vibrating charging/discharging capacitors seems to have some potential (assuming my concern is unfounded and it can generate thrust not just torque). There is a measurable effect there and can be explained reasonably as radiating either EM or gravity waves, both which can transfer momentum.

All of Woodward's experiments over the years have demonstrated linear force.  The fact that a torque pendulum turns linear force into torque doesn't negate the observation that the thrusters generate thrust.  I can see your point of concern that especially Tom Mahood's early wire pendulum experiments a decade ago are demonstrating torque but remember, it is the measurement apparatus, not the thruster; that is converting force into torque through use of a moment arm.  The arm is on the measurement apparatus, not the thruster.

Jim did however avoid use of a moment arm in test apparatus for some years when he was doing his tests with the U-80 load cell.  The troubles with the load cell were however, that it is not spec 'd for very short duration thrust impulses and it is an electromechanical device that one needs to demonstrate conclusively is not picking up any electrostatic or magnetic coupling.  Going to the ARC Lite balance really is a step up in measurement.  Additionally, Jim has been very careful to show he is not getting ion wind and thermal by running in E-6T vacuum.  He's also made judicious use of things like Mu metal to show there is no b field coupling etc. 

All in all, though the work goes slowly; it's been very thorough.  If there's a single questionable issue with the apparatus and protocols, it is that he is measuring exceedingly small forces and as StarDrive has said, there are many who find this an issue all alone.  But the ability to derive useful data from these systems is entirely dependent upon apparatus and protocol so I for one don't have issues with Jim's work.  So long as he stays above the noise floor by at least and order of magnitude, I can't see anything wrong with his work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/02/2008 10:03 pm
khallow: "As I (or for that matter, any classical observer) see it, the answer is  "no". However it happened, the above entangled system of the universe has collapsed, if only due to our classical observations. Further, if general relativity is accurate, inertial effects are not instantaneous. And if the universe is open (which is the current opinion of cosmology), then there is no resonance. Keep in mind further, that we only see part of the universe, just what is in the past of our light cone. The universe could well be infinite in spatial extent as well as time."

Well, the actual QVF would still be entangled because the particle/antiparticle production happens all in the Heisenberg uncertainty scale. Thus, having not been "observed" the entanglement might still be valid.

I believe the Casimir effect was used to generate thrust by NASA's APL, although it was miniscule (a vibrating plate...) I can see how this thruster concept would work in either a classical plasma exhaust situation, using QVF as reaction mass, or by using e/p pairs as the reaction mass for a Mach-Lorentz thruster. However in either case the thrust would be negligible. I think this thruster somehow relies on entanglement and Dark Matter to achieve the thrust we're looking at - or rather, generating a negative QVF gradient. This QVF seems less a thruster then the QVF gravitational equivalent of a balloon. Having not seen the paper and not having the physics background to judge it, one really has to adopt a "wait and see" attitude for this one. There are plenty of theories out there predicting gravity drives... Heim theory for one, which is still debatable.

Anyway, if the test article floats into the conference hall then we can discuss theory all we want while NASA rips out the orbiter SSMEs and stuffs these babies inside.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 11/03/2008 05:40 am
While I'm still concerned about whether the Mach-Lorentz thruster (MLT as usual) produces linear thrust or not, I do find myself warming up to it. If it works as advertised, not only do we have a potential propellantless thruster and emitter of gravity waves, but with slight modification (continue to charge/discharge the capacitor at the desired frequency, but let the capacitor float free), it should be able to serve as a detector of gravity waves in the appropriate frequencies. That means that among other things, you should be able to build sensors and communication devices (eg, phased arrays) using this idea. A gravity wave based communication system ought to be able to work under some unusual circumstances, like communicating directly through Earth.

In any case, multiple uses for the technology means it's more likely that one of them is sufficient to spur development of the technology in the near future.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/04/2008 06:06 am
Folks:

In regards to how the QVF drives actually may work, you might find it of interest to read thru the following paper by Dr. Paul Stevenson from Rice University, noting the unusual characteristics of a "Higgs vacuum".

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0409292v2

Hydrodynamics of the Vacuum
P. M. Stevenson
T. W. Bonner Laboratory, Department of Physics and Astronomy
Rice University, P.O. Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251-1892, USA

Abstract:
Hydrodynamics is the appropriate “effective theory” for describing any fluid medium at sufficiently long length scales. This paper treats the vacuum as such a medium and derives the corresponding hydrodynamic equations.  Unlike a normal medium the vacuum has no linear sound-wave regime; disturbances always “propagate” nonlinearly.  For an “empty vacuum” the hydrodynamic equations are familiar ones (shallow water-wave equations) and they describe an experimentally observed phenomenon — the spreading of a clump of zero-temperature atoms into empty space.  The “Higgs vacuum” case is much stranger; pressure and energy density, and hence time and space, exchange roles.  The speed of sound is formally infinite, rather than zero as in the empty vacuum.  Higher-derivative corrections to the vacuum hydrodynamic equations are also considered. In the empty-vacuum case the corrections are of quantum origin and the post-hydrodynamic description corresponds to the Gross-Pitaevskii equation. I conjecture the form of the post-hydrodynamic corrections in the Higgs case.  In the 1+1-dimensional case the equations possess remarkable ‘soliton’ solutions and appear to constitute a new exactly integrable system.


That makes me think of the inside of a black hole, where time and space swap places. I doubt if I could gain access to that journal, and the maths wouldn't mean much to me because I couldn't nitpick it. However, I can see how this theory would make sense in the context of negative energy.

Do you have a diagram of the QVF thruster?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/04/2008 06:10 am
While I'm still concerned about whether the Mach-Lorentz thruster (MLT as usual) produces linear thrust or not, I do find myself warming up to it. If it works as advertised, not only do we have a potential propellantless thruster and emitter of gravity waves, but with slight modification (continue to charge/discharge the capacitor at the desired frequency, but let the capacitor float free), it should be able to serve as a detector of gravity waves in the appropriate frequencies. That means that among other things, you should be able to build sensors and communication devices (eg, phased arrays) using this idea. A gravity wave based communication system ought to be able to work under some unusual circumstances, like communicating directly through Earth.

In any case, multiple uses for the technology means it's more likely that one of them is sufficient to spur development of the technology in the near future.


Maybe capacitors in spacecraft circuitry, interacting with fluctuations in the ambient gravity field as they pass over an uneven Earth, have been responsible for their uncorrected-for orbit perturbations?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/10/2008 05:44 am
Star-Drive,

Thanks for straightening things out. It's a plain ole JxB thruster but with dielectric instead of the... "combustion chamber" (don't know what to call it in a non-chemical rocket). Injection cavity?

I wonder what else comes popping out of the QVF? I suppose in addition to the zoo of subatomic particles you might have gravitons, too. Wonder if someone's written a paper on it - more likely I'm talking rubbish.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: nacnud on 11/22/2008 04:50 am
Surely that is just a conformation that E=mc**2 .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 11/22/2008 01:52 pm
Lampyridae:

You and Karl might find the following article from NewScientist of some interest entitled: "It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html?full=true&print=true

Since matter appears to be just self-contaiend vacuum-fluctuations smoke rings that make up the proton's quarks & gluons as well the electrons, then artifically affecting these elements by externally applied E&M fields as proposed in the MLT and QVF/MHD thruster devices becomes much less of a reach don't you think?   

An isolated proton is not a vacuum state, hence, it is not a vacuum fluctuation. It does provide evidence for quantum chromodynamics (QCD) (the theory with quarks and all forces but gravity in it) which does have vacuum fluctuations. And even if vacuum fluctuations exist (which I consider very likely), doesn't mean we can exploit it for a propulsion technology. The MLT (Mach Lorentz Thruster for those who haven't been keeping up) is pushing back and forth a capacitor whose inertia we can control via charging and discharging the capacitor. In other words, the capacitor's inertia fluctuates, but in a way we control.

The QVF/MWD (Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation/MagnetoHydroDynamics) thruster is attempting to do the same (as far as I can tell) for a patch of fluctuating vacuum for which we do not control the "fluctuation". Even attempting to observe the vacuum (in order to figure out whether to push or pull, let's say) will change to some degree the state of the vacuum. I just don't see the mechanism for generating a predictable, consistent thrust in a particular direction.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/27/2008 12:28 am
Lampyridae:

You and Karl might find the following article from NewScientist of some interest entitled: "It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html?full=true&print=true

Since matter appears to be just self-contaiend vacuum-fluctuations smoke rings that make up the proton's quarks & gluons as well the electrons, then artifically affecting these elements by externally applied E&M fields as proposed in the MLT and QVF/MHD thruster devices becomes much less of a reach don't you think?   

An isolated proton is not a vacuum state, hence, it is not a vacuum fluctuation. It does provide evidence for quantum chromodynamics (QCD) (the theory with quarks and all forces but gravity in it) which does have vacuum fluctuations. And even if vacuum fluctuations exist (which I consider very likely), doesn't mean we can exploit it for a propulsion technology. The MLT (Mach Lorentz Thruster for those who haven't been keeping up) is pushing back and forth a capacitor whose inertia we can control via charging and discharging the capacitor. In other words, the capacitor's inertia fluctuates, but in a way we control.

The QVF/MWD (Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation/MagnetoHydroDynamics) thruster is attempting to do the same (as far as I can tell) for a patch of fluctuating vacuum for which we do not control the "fluctuation". Even attempting to observe the vacuum (in order to figure out whether to push or pull, let's say) will change to some degree the state of the vacuum. I just don't see the mechanism for generating a predictable, consistent thrust in a particular direction.


Yet we *are* observing the vacuum, at a macroscopic state, because mass is real and not virtual. Somehow, all the quantum vacuum fluctuations even out and we don't live in a bubbling mass of quantum soda.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/27/2008 01:33 am
Surely that is just a conformation that E=mc**2 .

True, but it seems that matter is closer to energy than we would have thought. And that there seems to be a clearer link between energy and gravity, not just some unexplained space-time distortion in the presence of matter or energy. I'm keen to see where this research goes.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 11/27/2008 03:09 am

Yet we *are* observing the vacuum, at a macroscopic state, because mass is real and not virtual. Somehow, all the quantum vacuum fluctuations even out and we don't live in a bubbling mass of quantum soda.

The point of the computation was to demonstrate that the "standard model" does a decent job of approximating the mass of a proton. As I see it, we can't go from the model to claiming there's an exploitable fluctuation in the vacuum state. It's something like claiming you have some algorithm for consistently making money from the stock market based solely on the observation that prices on the stock market fluctuate. It could be true, but I'd like to see what mechanism is going to make that work out.

Surely that is just a conformation that E=mc**2 .

True, but it seems that matter is closer to energy than we would have thought. And that there seems to be a clearer link between energy and gravity, not just some unexplained space-time distortion in the presence of matter or energy. I'm keen to see where this research goes.

General relativity has a very close relationship between mass and energy, and between those two and the curvature of spacetime. The Einstein field equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations) equate an expression of the curvature of space and the cosmological constant with the stress-energy tensor which describes the mass and energy flow of the system.

I think even when we come up with accurate theories that incorporate the four forces (and perhaps other phenomena manifesting at energies beyond what we currently can observe), we still have a general relativity approximation (since general relativity works pretty well on the cosmological scale). So whatever's in the greater theory will reduce (once aspects like electromagnetism are negligiable or perhaps somehow encapsulated) to curvature, cosmological constant, or the stress-energy tensor. That should in itself imply the deep relationships between mass and energy you note, Lampyridae.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MTKeshe on 11/28/2008 11:22 am
If one uses matter, or anti-matter  for motion in propellantless field propulsion systems in atmospheric condition or space condition,  would  one be able to measure the  thrust created by the system or no , as one can do in rocket technology?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 12/03/2008 01:25 am
I take it you mean an accelerometer. It depends on the nature of the propellantless propulsion device. The MLT is a kind of rocket thruster using Far-Off Active Mass as "propellant." Therefore acceleration would be felt as normal, and without issues like intense vibrations and so on. Gravity-based drives for example wouldn't produce noticeable acceleration in the craft as it would be "falling" wherever its artificial gravity well pointed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 12/13/2008 11:24 pm
Well, with the rumblings in the beltway, I think that may be the case. Fingers crossed. I'm sure the DoD is quietly conducting its own experiments on this, but you can rest assured they won't be for public consumption. :P

Star-Drive, is there a diagram available illustrating how the QVF thruster works, or a design?

At the moment, I'm just guessing at how this all fits together. I'm just digesting stuff on vacuum energy and pair production (oh how shallow my physics knowledge is...). But the e/p pairs do have an influence thanks to vacuum polarisation. What purpose does the 100 MHz RF generator therefore have? How does it set up phonons in the e/p plasma? I gather it would pull them apart and make them dipoles for a little bit longer before they annihilate.

What is the current state of experiments with the MLT? Been off this forum for a while, too busy with business.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 12/14/2008 08:50 am
I take it you mean an accelerometer. It depends on the nature of the propellantless propulsion device. The MLT is a kind of rocket thruster using Far-Off Active Mass as "propellant." Therefore acceleration would be felt as normal, and without issues like intense vibrations and so on. Gravity-based drives for example wouldn't produce noticeable acceleration in the craft as it would be "falling" wherever its artificial gravity well pointed.

Still it'll push on anything attached to it like a lever arm or cable. So you should be able to measure the thrust even if apparent acceleration is different.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 02/27/2009 07:39 am
Star-Drive, is there any way to access the preprint listed in this conference?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cgrunska on 02/27/2009 11:49 pm
I barely understand anything you're writing Star-Drive, but it sounds friggin sweet. On the order, or above that of Dr. Bussard and his fusion plant!

Lets hope these things aren't just sci-fi
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 02/28/2009 07:00 am
If I may add to what Paul is saying when he pens:

"The big problem here is just that very few people in the world have gone down this particular General Relativity rabbit trail. . ."

I have to concur.  There are relatively few theoretical physicists who have caught on to what Jim Woodward did when he brought Einstein and Mach together--that was a piece of genius we'll be looking back on for centuries much as we do with Lorentz, Maxwell and so many others who brought us an understanding of electromagnetism and all the tech that comes from this.

But why I'm posting again after several months away. . .anyone wanting a fuller understanding of the historical basis for what we're doing in gravinertial engineering will find this work invaluable:

http://www.amazon.com/Machs-Principle-Newtons-Quantum-Einstein/dp/0817638237/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235806860&sr=8-1

I highly recommend all of chapter 3 and especially Barbour's  "General Relativity as a Perfectly Machian Theory".  Obviously, Jim Woodward is not the only physicist who understands the relevance of Mach's Principle but he's the guy that made this apprehensible and an obtainable technology.

We have evidence, folks.  This is real and happening.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/28/2009 05:04 pm
Dr. James F. Woodward has recently completed a series of rotary based experiments designed to test his Mach-Effect (M-E) Conjecture--that when a capacitor dielectric's mass is driven by a time varying electromagnetic (E&M) power flux, while simultaneously undergoing bulk acceleration relative to the distant stars; that this will give rise to Mach Effects, or the temporary fluctuation of relativistic mass. 


Does Woodward's work relate at all to the work of the late TT Brown?

Using relativity to change the reaction mass through the cycle is the key to making this work, this is something I've known for over a decade. One question I've always had was whether it was possible to have mass-changing relativistic effects at much lower speeds by using, for instance, a fluid dynamic model, in which the speed of light within the fluid is very slow, and thus generate the impulse from using a hydraulic model with a fluid as the working mass.

I designed and built a prototype to test this a long while back but did not have the lab facilities to test it properly.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 02/28/2009 05:55 pm
I don't think Dr. Woodward's work has anything to do with Brown and he'd probably be the first to tell you he has no confidence in Brown's work for several reasons.

On the issue of relativistic mass, Dr. Woodward's thrusters and rotators do not generate relativistic speeds in the dielectric.  The term "relativistic mass" is really only used to point out that his theory does not state that fluctuations in rest mass can be achieved.  Fluctuating rest mass would indeed make the universe an unsafe place.  Rather, his theory shows us how to temporarily fluctuate the entire energy state of mass, as per wiki's explanantion:

"The term relativistic mass is also used, and this is the total quantity of energy in a body or system (divided by c2). The relativistic mass (of a body or system of bodies) includes a contribution from the kinetic energy of the body, and is larger the faster the body moves, so unlike the invariant mass, the relativistic mass depends on the observer's frame of reference. However, for given single frames of reference and for closed systems, the relativistic mass is also a conserved quantity.

Because the relativistic mass is proportional to the energy, it has gradually fallen into disuse in among physicists[1]. There is disagreement over whether the concept remains pedagogically useful.[2][3]"

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

In our case, drawing this distinction between rest or invarient mass and relativistic mass is a useful one because it sets aside objections physicists might otherwise rightly raise, that rest mass is indeed invarient and cannot be fluctuated.  Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/02/2009 01:55 am
I don't think Dr. Woodward's work has anything to do with Brown and he'd probably be the first to tell you he has no confidence in Brown's work for several reasons.

I know Woodward was primarily trying to come up with a scenario where a Dean Drive type model would actually work and not be neutralized by simple newtonian physics. The key of course is as he has used mach's principle.

The reason Brown's work came to mind is due to his work on high energy/voltage capacitors, the Biefeld Brown Effect, and associated patents.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/02/2009 11:41 pm
GI-thruster, I believe Robert Forward came up with a "reactionless drive" using relativistic mass, but to get anything useful out of required using something akin to neutronium IIRC.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/03/2009 07:37 pm
Robert Forward did have a scheme for reactionless thrust but I believe it required an amount of constant, negative mass.  Woodward's thruster may make use of negative mass though only through temporary fluctuation.  If the fluctuation is > 100%, then the mass will go negative during its fluctuation but this is not required for his thrusters.  Both the MLT and UFG have apparently produced thrust without going to a dm>m condition however, we believe that a much greater thrust efficiency can be had by crossing this "wormhole boundary" of achieving a dm>m condition.  In fact, both Paul's MLT from several years ago and his current work are in "wormhole territory" where if no new conditions exist for mass fluctuation, we should see very large thrusts compared to what we should have with the more mundane dm<m conditions Woodward has till now been driving.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/03/2009 08:07 pm
I see lots of handwaving and damned little math in this thread.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/03/2009 09:56 pm
We're waving because we're all friends here. If you want to get up to speed just on the issue of Dr. Woodward's work, you can click the links posted about it on 7/6/8, 7/7/8, 9/17/8, 9/26/8 and 2/28/9.

Good luck!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 03/04/2009 01:10 pm
Dear Star Drive;

Thank you very much for your update. If I understand you correct the data-to-noise ratio of the latest tests showed a dB-ratio of ~10dB or 10-to-1. This is IMHO fantastic news. With such a large data-to-noise ratio the viability of the theory, the experiments and therefore the MLT thrusters is IMHO nearly a given.

On the other side the Newton/Watt ratio of 0,1 – 10 Newton / Watt you talk about seems rather extreme. :) I hope these values are not too good to be true. According to a PDF I read a few days ago a normal Toyota Corolla needs around 500 Newton to overcome the drag (body + wheels) at 100kmh (~ 62mph). The car engine needs ~13,5 KW of power for that. On the other side a highly efficient MLT would need only 50 Watts for the same task. So a MLT could be up to 270 times more efficient as a normal car engine which drives the wheels. That’s astounding.
I really hope that the calculations about the very high efficiency of the MLT’s are correct because this would open a complete new world regarding everything transportation, starting with simple pedal powered vehicles up to behemoth star cruisers. But I fear that it could not be so because it sounds too good to be true. 

Kind regards

Manfred
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/04/2009 04:00 pm
From a private note:

"I was reading the STAIF presentation from 2007 and in the end there was a time scale with conclusion.
What would mean G/I Power Generators?"


If one is using an MLT or UFG and running in wormhole territory, meaning the mass fluctuation is > 100%; then the amount of kinetic energy generated by the thruster ought to be more than the electrical energy supplied to the thruster.  What this means is such a thruster can be connected to the flywheel of a generator and will produce net electrical energy.  Such a generator system seems at first glance to be a violation of conservation but such is not the case.  The thruster is actually "harvesting" momentum and energy from the gravinertial flux of the universe so such a system is not any different than say a coal fired power plant but in our case, the coal is replaced by the GI field.

What this would mean for space transport, any transport; is the possibility of creating generally "rangeless" craft that are limited in range only by things other than their propulsion needs.  Much like nuclear powered Navy vessals, the operational issues then become things like foodstuffs.  That's a headache I think we'd all prefer over the very limited kind of space travel we've had till now.

Hope that answers your question.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 03/04/2009 06:43 pm
Star-Drive,

Could the LOX/Hydrogen fuel cells be replaced with radioisotope thermoelectric generator like one in Cassini probe for a Mars mission?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 03/04/2009 08:35 pm
Unfortunately, there are at least 10 years before Bussard generators will appear.

Star-Drive,

What is the velocity limit of WarpStar-1? I guess it could be used for missions beyond Mars, although I would dream to go there first :)

One more thing: What would look like a liftoff of a WarpStar-1?


As we extract energy from this G/I energy resource, the average kinetic energy temperature of the universe's atoms will decrease until they hit absolute zero.
Which means that nature is giving the ship superconductivity without the need of the material itself (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)



Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 03/04/2009 10:33 pm
That would be a fantastic ride around Sol 8)

The size of the craft is not an issue, I guess. Because the next step of the space exploration era is space colonization, and therefore much payload capacity will be needed for transporting materials to the moon, Mars and the other planets. Human presence should spread in Sol, we all agree.

Now that I'm little more familiar with WarpStar-1, I think it is intended to be the craft that would be able to show new ways of propulsion that far outstrip modern chemical rockets. It combines old and new technologies: the bond past-future. I fully support it's development and it realy should be taken seriously by the whole aerospace sector.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/05/2009 12:11 am
Dear Star Drive;

Thank you very much for your update. If I understand you correct the data-to-noise ratio of the latest tests showed a dB-ratio of ~10dB or 10-to-1. This is IMHO fantastic news. With such a large data-to-noise ratio the viability of the theory, the experiments and therefore the MLT thrusters is IMHO nearly a given.

On the other side the Newton/Watt ratio of 0,1 – 10 Newton / Watt you talk about seems rather extreme. :) I hope these values are not too good to be true. According to a PDF I read a few days ago a normal Toyota Corolla needs around 500 Newton to overcome the drag (body + wheels) at 100kmh (~ 62mph). The car engine needs ~13,5 KW of power for that. On the other side a highly efficient MLT would need only 50 Watts for the same task. So a MLT could be up to 270 times more efficient as a normal car engine which drives the wheels. That’s astounding.

You shouldn't think of the MLT as an engine - it's more like a sail in terms of how it gets its energy. Consider that Columbus sailed all the way across the Atlantic with the only energy expenditure from his vehicle being the work down to trim the sails. The MLT simply uses environmental energy and environmental mass. If it were solar-powered it would use zero onboard energy. Heck, solar sails are a propellantless drive. If you make one big and thin enough you could get similar performance to the MLT - it's just unwieldy is all.

Quote
I really hope that the calculations about the very high efficiency of the MLT’s are correct because this would open a complete new world regarding everything transportation, starting with simple pedal powered vehicles up to behemoth star cruisers. But I fear that it could not be so because it sounds too good to be true. 

Kind regards

Manfred


Sometimes you just get big technological leaps. Several decades ago we cracked the atom, and that could have taken us all over the solar system and to the nearer stars except for the political issues.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/05/2009 12:20 am
Sith:

Any self-contained electrical power generation system with sufficient power output will do, but high efficiency approaches are preferable since they minimize the size and mass of the radiators required to dump the waste heat from the power source.  That is why I prefer direct energy to electricity conversion cycles that avoid the Carnot Cycle such as fuel cells or regenerative fuel cells tied to photovoltaic systems for inside Mars orbit work, and Bussard's aneutronic wiffleball fusion reactors with direct kinetic energy to electrostatic energy cycles that can conversion efficiencies greater that 80% needed for deep space work outside of Mars orbit.

BTW, I have one final note on the above question on whether the MLT 1.0 N/W operating efficiency GOAL is too good to be true.  The TOTAL potential energy wrapped up in the gravinertial (G/I) field, i.e. how big is this G/I field gas tank anyway, is tied directly to the total amount of kinetic energy of every atom in the causally connected (13.7 billion light year radius) universe, AND any potential Dark Energy tied up in "The Quantum Vacuum".  As we extract energy from this G/I energy resource, the average kinetic energy temperature of the universe's atoms will decrease until they hit absolute zero.  However, we would first have to drain the 67% of the Universe’s mass/energy reserves wrapped up in the Dark Energy field before or in parallel with extracting the kinetic energy reserves of the sensible atoms and subatomic particles that make up the rest of the 33% of the universe’s mass/energy before we run this tank dry.   

Just to let you know how LARGE an energy reserve this is, the visible portion of the universe's mass/energy makes up ~5% of this available mass/energy reserve per the latest cosmological estimates and they place that figure at ~1x10^80 atoms plus many more subatomic particles like neutrinos.  If each atom in the universe has an average ~6.24x 10^-18 Joules (1.0 electron volt) of kinetic energy, which is an educated WAG on my part, then the total kinetic energy that could be conveyed by the G/I field to the MLT from this 5% resource is 6.24x10^-18 x 1.0x10^80 = 6.24x10^62 Joules.  A 15 Megaton H-bomb puts out ~6.3x10^16 Joules…

Now, if the universe is destined to suffer the "Big Rip" where the Quantum Vacuum's Dark Energy that makes up the rest of the universe’s mass/energy literally rips the universe apart in three-to-ten billion years or so, (See the latest copy of Astronomy Magazine"), our only solution to keep this from happening is for all the civilizations in the universe to extract as much energy as they can from the G/I field to keep this fate from happening!  :)   




Since the G/I energy is ultimately converted to local waste heat and blackbody radiation, if everybody does this across the universe then there is no net energy drain. You would reach a point where the pull of all the G/I taps creates a net cooling effect but that would be balanced by the waste heat energy of the G/I powered systems... unfortunately stars and galaxies without net heat input would get frozen. Their cores wouldn't notice it but the stellar atompsheres would get chilled and frozen out even though their cores are still fusing and running at millions of kelvin.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 03/05/2009 06:04 am
Star-Drive,

I didn't follow anything since the begining of the thread, but I would like to know, does this G/I flux influence the mass of the craft? I mean that field is going to make Warp-Star1 light as a feather, isn't it? Which would make it even more economical :)   

However, at what rate would the time flow inside the craft when it is active and in space? Because we know from Einstein that time is relative to the gravitational body. Since the WarpStar uses G/I field, it'll have some time side effect? For example running slower or faster, time dilation (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/06/2009 05:54 am
Star-Drive,

That's interesting. I had thought that the G/I effect was constrained to particles only, (ie the ions in the cap) but from what you're saying and from Woodward's explanation, that the mass variation is a result of a change in G/I local field strength?

So this mass variation field in fact is something like an artificial gravity well, or perhaps more accurately a kink in the local gravinertial field. This sounds to me a lot like good old fluid dynamics, where the MLT thruster forms something like a wing. Low pressure flow on top, high pressure below. This results in the counterintuitive situation of a gravity well below the vessel and an antigravity well in front. This is pretty useful - the drive could be used to pick up cargo (cows? UFO nuts?) and at the same time also seems to create a low pressure zone on top of the craft. I have no way of figuring this (I don't have any numbers for the resultant g-fields) but it seems like the MLT actually produces aerodynamic lift whilst static as well. It would also shunt debris aside and act as a kind of shield. However landings might be tricky as there could be a shower of loose rocks and soil rising up in certain spots.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 03/06/2009 06:54 pm
why did you think that the WarpStar-1 was a great way to start the M-E development process?
Because it somehow assembles a unique design of hybrid vehicle that is not completely propellantless, but the right step to it.
The Lorentz force involvement makes me feel it'll succeed.

If the G/I drives are mounted inside the vehicle as I've done in the WarpStar-1 prototype, it might create some interesting localized gravitational like anomalies in the crew cabin up and downwind of the momentum flux exhaust.
In that case time will flow faster or slower inside the craft?


If you transiently shield the local ions in the dielectric from this ambient G/I field thru local ionic accelerations, then momentarily the inertial mass of the ion(s) have to change as it responds to this local disturbance (Kink) in the G/I field.
Positive or negative ions?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 03/07/2009 02:23 pm
What kind of payload can this theoretical G/I propulsion lift compared to chemical rockets ?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/07/2009 03:08 pm
I'm not sure it's fair to compare a theoretical thruster based upon an almost arbitrary thrust efficiency figure, 1 N/W; to an actual thruster like SSME, etc.  But so that you have an idea of what is possible, the 1N/W figure was chosen by Paul and worked into his WarpStar design because it is a reasonable figure.  If you read the paper, you'll get an idea.

WarpStar 1 is the size of a largish business jet.  It can take off and land vertically so needs almost no infrastructure support.  You can park it in a few spaces at Walmart.  It's fuel cells are regenerative so you can plug it in to recharge the fuels or more quickly just replace the generated water with H2 and O2 and strip the water back off ship on either Earth or the Moon.  Top off any LN for cryogenics, add cheese puffs and away you go.  Since it doesn't make a hypersonic reentry, there is almost no maintenance to be concerned with and it can easily make 3 round trip flights to the Moon/day dropping several tons of payload each trip.  A single WarpStar could build a habitable Moonbase for dozens of people all by itself in less than a month.

So you see, there is really no comparing it to rockets. . .the Millenium Falcon maybe. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 03/07/2009 03:22 pm
I'm not sure it's fair to compare a theoretical thruster based upon an almost arbitrary thrust efficiency figure, 1 N/W; to an actual thruster like SSME, etc.  But so that you have an idea of what is possible, the 1N/W figure was chosen by Paul and worked into his WarpStar design because it is a reasonable figure.  If you read the paper, you'll get an idea.

WarpStar 1 is the size of a largish business jet.  It can take off and land vertically so needs almost no infrastructure support.  You can park it in a few spaces at Walmart.  It's fuel cells are regenerative so you can plug it in to recharge the fuels or more quickly just replace the generated water with H2 and O2 and strip the water back off ship on either Earth or the Moon.  Top off any LN for cryogenics, add cheese puffs and away you go.  Since it doesn't make a hypersonic reentry, there is almost no maintenance to be concerned with and it can easily make 3 round trip flights to the Moon/day dropping several tons of payload each trip.  A single WarpStar could build a habitable Moonbase for dozens of people all by itself in less than a month.

So you see, there is really no comparing it to rockets. . .the Millenium Falcon maybe. . .

Ok sounds good, so what is now the biggest problem preventing development and deployment of such a vehicle in the near-term future ?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/07/2009 03:46 pm
I'm not sure there's anything preventing development.  These things just take time.  Presently, the only person working on this full-time if Dr. Woodward.  Once DARPA gets its head out of its a$$ there should be funds for full time theoretical research and engineering development.  The main thing is to get the best people on this as their work-a-day jobs so we can see some real progress and we can't do that without a grant, etc.  So once the evidence is compelling enough for the people with the purses, we'll see action.  I should add that Dr. Woodward has many times refused financial support from Angel investors, etc. because he wants to see the level of evidence improved before he'll take money to move this along. 

If we don't see compelling evidence from the current rotator work by this June, or thrust evidence from March's high Q MLT sometime soon, then I think we'll see another UFG on the ARC Lite for testing by next fall and that should be enough for USG to take an active hand, IMHO.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/10/2009 05:31 am
Lampy:

"That's interesting. I had thought that the G/I effect was constrained to particles only, (ie the ions in the cap) but from what you're saying and from Woodward's explanation, that the mass variation is a result of a change in G/I local field strength?"

You win the prize!  The M-E is first and foremost a G/I field effect theory based on the interactions between local ionic masses AND the ambient gravinertial field created by the rest of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe.  A G/I field that IS the causal agent of the property we call inertia.  If you transiently shield the local ions in the dielectric from this ambient G/I field thru local ionic accelerations, then momentarily the inertial mass of the ion(s) have to change as it responds to this local disturbance (Kink) in the G/I field.  (Visions of Obi-Wan talking about the “Force” now come to mind. :) )  Knowing how the bidirectional mass to G/I field interaction works and the rules that apply to that interaction contains the keys to low cost, faster and much safer inter-solar transportation and practical human crewed interstellar flight.

BTW, there is also another way to model the M-E mass fluctuations and that is via looking at them as QM based vacuum fluctuations in between the ions of the dielectric in question.  These quantum vacuum fluctuations (QVF) can be modeled as a very short lived and transient electron/positron pair neutral plasma with phonon induced pressure wave interactions that follow standard magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) rules, i.e., your fluid dynamics as applied to electrical plasmas.  The dielectric ions in this QVF model then act as obstructions to this plasma when the local dielectric ions are accelerated by an outside force, thus increasing the QVF density around the ions above the universe’s average QVF density of ~1.0x10^-26 kg/m^3. 

Dr. Harold (Sonny) White (NASA/JSC & Rice U.) has modeled the M-E as a Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation / MHD effect and his QVF/MHD spreadsheet tool predicts the observed thrust of my MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles' to within a factor of two.  I think we can be assured that when predicting how the gravinertial (G/I) field will respond to a given stimulus, hydrodynamic analysis tools will have to be used...


Hmmmm... so both theories predict a sort of attractive force at the bottom of the capacitor (I can almost picture a Lagrangian flow diagram in my head). The weird thing is there is always zero "flow" around the engine, it's kind of like a low-powered jet engine in a thick atmosphere until you get to relativistic speeds.

Have your tests accounted for these predicted local gravity variations? Are they at a level where they could affect the thrust measurements? From the photos of your apparatus so far I guess it wouldn't be measurable.


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/10/2009 05:29 pm
Lampy, if memory serves, about a year ago there was a concern that the ARC Lite might have some vertical-horizontal coupling and that what we might have been seeing was a time averaged loss of mass.  Maybe Paul can remember better. But in any case, if the ARC Lite were assembled in "teeter totter" configuration, meaning the displacement of the arm were vertical rather than horizontal, then such phenomena as you describe probably could be studied.  They were not because the studies at that time had other goals but they could be studied in the future using existing apparatus.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/10/2009 09:37 pm
If we don't see compelling evidence from the current rotator work by this June, or thrust evidence from March's high Q MLT sometime soon, then I think we'll see another UFG on the ARC Lite for testing by next fall and that should be enough for USG to take an active hand, IMHO.

Update: Dr. Woodward announced today that he will begin construction of the next generation UFG this week (a pair of antagonistic stacks or "shuttler" design--gen 5), so we will probably be seeing more thrust tests from Fullerton before he goes on extended vacation in June. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/11/2009 02:05 pm
It'll be interesting to see if there's a consistent difference in force generated by the next gen UFG, based upon orientation in the Earth's field but I presume that sort of study will have to wait until Dr. Woodward is satisfied with the more general thrust studies.  Lets hope that happens sometime soon.  Also, perhaps Dr. Woodward can be cajoled into allowing us to paste up a graph of the most recent rotator data here when he starts moving if from Excel to Graph to PPT.  That could form the basis of some real interest and discussion.  As it is now, the rotator is demonstrating these two effects in anti-phase--electrostrictive and Mach-Effect--and he's showing the specific gee loading where the M-E goes > electrostriction, which is what theory predicts since electrostriction is not related to loading except for hydrostatic effects.  The data is certainly still young but it is most promising.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/16/2009 04:12 am
The "graviton" model I've been using seems to come up with a lot of contradictory stuff - gravitational forces averaging over the amount of mass in the mini g-well, the gravity well being "blocked up" if there's too much mass in it etc. Assuming GR curvature seems to make it work more nicely.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/16/2009 09:08 am
Please explain how these gees translate. This is obviously gross gees at some point in the cycle, not net thrust between opposing positive and negative thrusts.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 03/16/2009 11:17 am
Quote from: Star-Drive link=topic=13020.msg371066#msg371066

With a constant 1.0 gee acceleration, the velocity limit is simply vel= vel-o + a*t where a= 9.81 m/sec^2 (1.0 gee) and t is 12 hour run time in seconds or 43,200 sec.  So the "burn-out" velocity for this configuration when the LOX/Hydrogen tanks run dry is 423,792 meters/sec or 423.792 km/sec.  If you want to go faster then add solar arrays or a fission based nuclear power plant like a SP-100 that can put out that same power for up to ten years.  Of coruse after only about 9 months at 1.0 gee you are going 99% the speed of light.

Lets do a very rough energy budget calculation. I'm even going to go well against my training and neglect momentum conservation.

Lets imagine a 1kg mass moving at 99% the speed of light. At this speed the best way of calculating kinetic energy is not KE=.5mv^2 but using the relativistic formula: Total energy = gamma * m * c^2 (c is the speed of light)

gamma = 1 / Sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )

now we are saying that v/c = .99, right? OK so after punching a few numbers gamma is a little over 7, but lets take 7 as a rough estimate.

(Note that actually the usual calculation for kinetic energy is just an approximation to this formula but we won't worry about that here)

so the total mass-energy of this speedy kilogram is actually 7kg. That is 6kg's worth of energy has been converted directly to energy in order to accelerate this single kilogram. (Note that we haven't considered how this has been done and the necessary inefficiencies of the method)

OK 6kg of energy. How much is that? Well its 54 * 10^16 J...

Next question is: how many seconds in 9 months? Thats just over 23 million seconds

What is the average power? 2.34 * 10 ^ 10 Watts - 23.4 Gigawatts (I can't imagine what Dr Emmot Brown would say: probably thats 19.3 lightning bolts - for nine months)

Don't forget, this is for 1 kilogram...

I'm going back to the reality of STS-119 coverage...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/16/2009 01:51 pm
Cel, you're bringing up an issue familiar to all on the Woodward mailing list though from a new standpoint.  The issue really is, how can there be so much mass fluctuation?  The energy equivalent is enormous. 

So you know, you only calculated a 700% fluctuation.  Paul March's current MLT build is designed around a 3,000,000% fluctuation.

So maybe the math isn't as simple as it seems to you?  The fact that mass can be fluctuated AT ALL is the real issue. . .the one you haven't grappled with yet.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/16/2009 01:59 pm
Paul, your chart is saying that M-E scales approximately linearly with gee loading.  What I'm curious about is what we should expect with rectified thrust.  If one uses the same mechanism for both bulk acceleration and rectification, for example a UFG, then thrust ought to scale to acceleration^2?

It matters since we both know rotators are not the best way to build thrusters.  We need a Mhz UFG or MLT with displacements in the uM range.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 03/16/2009 03:07 pm
Cel, you're bringing up an issue familiar to all on the Woodward mailing list though from a new standpoint.  The issue really is, how can there be so much mass fluctuation?  The energy equivalent is enormous. 

So you know, you only calculated a 700% fluctuation.  Paul March's current MLT build is designed around a 3,000,000% fluctuation.

So maybe the math isn't as simple as it seems to you?  The fact that mass can be fluctuated AT ALL is the real issue. . .the one you haven't grappled with yet.

All I was describing is the effect of relativity, which is necessary because the speed of light is observed to be constant in all reference frames. I ws trying to highlight that the average power requirements were very large to reach 99% the speed of light in 9 months.

I am not familar with the Woodward mainling list. I've never heard of mass fluctuation. Changing the mass of something? Well according the the mass-energy equivalence that we all know and love, this would see, like energy from nothing... Is that what you are proposing?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 03/16/2009 03:17 pm

C:

As GI-Thruster has already noted, using E=m*c^2 in the way you’ve done to gage the energy flux during an inertial mass fluctuation is correct from one point of view, but it’s not the appropriate way to view this G/I mass fluctuation phenomenon, for it misses the whole point of Sciama’s and Woodward’s view on the origins of inertia.  In their conjectures, derivations, and Woodward’s data, the origins of inertial mass, when looking at a local mass in the laboratory frame of reference, is being due to the local mass’ gravity/inertial (G/I) field interactions.   A G/I field created by all the rest of the mass/energy contained in the causally connected universe.  In this conjecture, if we were in a universe with only one local chunk of mass, it would have almost no inertial mass properties since there would be very little G/I field interactions to impede its acceleration.

Sciama and Woodward models this G/I interaction of the accelerated mass with a universal G/I field as a transient disturbance in the G/I field around the accelerated mass, which transiently shields the mass from its G/I field energy source, which in turn reduces the effective inertial mass of the locally accelerated mass as long as that disturbance in the G/I field exists close by the mass in question.  However, since this G/I disturbance propagates spherically away from the local mass at the speed of light, this single transient mass fluctuation event of the local mss does not last very long, and that is why any quasi-steady state G/I thruster has to use an alternating current (ac) excitation to keep producing these transient G/I shielding events around the G/I thruster mass in question.

If you have more questions, I advise that you read through Dr. Woodward’s CSUF entry on gravitation and the origins of inertia that can be found at this URL by clicking on the Gravitation topic in his Research Interests:

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



I have not understood your jargonistic repsonse. You've talked about a "G/I field" and "a quasi-steady state G/I thruster". I don't know what these terms mean. I appreciate your offer of reading more at the URL that you have provided. Howevet, if you want me to believe in what you are telling me then you will have to be brief. Honestly, if its real physics, I can take it. How is it that you can create mass from nothing? If it can be done, why does it not happen naturally and spontaneously?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 03/16/2009 05:28 pm
We really need a thread that outlines the exotic technologies we discuss here with glossaries and links to relevant literature.

Moving on, I'd like to summarize some earlier concerns I had with the MLT (Machian Lorentz Thruster) device.

1. We still need to demonstrate that it generates thrust (linear force) not torque (rotational force). I have a good deal of optimism that this is a thrust effect, but I think it needs to be resolved.

2. The equation given in this thread for estimating the thrust doesn't appear to scale to frequencies where masses are vibrating at relativistic velocities.

3. The Machian model (the part where the device is pushing against the rest of the universe) doesn't add much. I think we would be better served to view the device as a generator of gravitational and electromagnetic waves (in some combination which carry the momentum needed to generate thrust) in a particular direction. Among other things, the latter is a local theory and doesn't depend on the  extent of the universe.

4. If above model idea is accurate and the MLT device generates net thrust, then we should be able to work in reverse. That is, the MLT should be able to detect gravitational and electromagnetic waves (of similar characteristics) as well as generate them. If it can detect pure gravitational waves and generate gravitational waves, then we have the basis for a communication system that can penetrate considerable mass like the Earth or the Sun. Even if a single element has extremely poor resolution (think a directional antenna with very large lobes or a telescope that picks up and blurs everything in the large portion of sky that it is pointed at), a large enough phased array of them could have the desired resolution.

5. We should be able to test just how fast gravitational waves propagate. Are they instantaneous or move at the speed of light?

6. A similar device, the QVF/MHD (Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation/MagnetoHydroDynamics) thruster doesn't appear to me to be viable. It depends on the existence of exploitable fluctuations in the vacuum background. I see the current arguments in favor of QVF/MHD thrusters as analogous to saying that you can make money from the stock market merely because you know the stock market fluctuates.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/16/2009 06:36 pm
Karl, I'll take a stab at responding to your 6 points above while keeping an eye out to try to precise some terms so Cal can take advantage of the thread without backing up six months.  I agree Mach-Effect (M-E) work done on the rotator, the  UFG (Unified Force Generator) and the MLT (Mach-Lorentz Thruster) deserve their own thread, especially in light of the new evidence pouring out of the Fullerton lab daily.  Also I agree that it is probably best to leave the alternate, ZPF based explanation aside since it is an alternate explanation, Dr. White has some issues still unresolved and his theory has not yet been peer reviewed. 
 
As to your points:
 
1)  Just because a thruster is on a measurement devise with a moment arm does not mean one is measuring torque.  The fact that it is the measurement apparatus that includes a moment arm and not the thruster should be enough to show this.  All of the thrusters to date, both UFG and MLT have demonstrated not torque, but linear thrust.  However, it really does not matter, Karl.  All torque based pseudo-thrusters like Dean Drives always have their torque time average to zero.  They cannot work because they entail an intrinsic failure to conserve momentum.  Dean Drives only appear to work under certain conditions but they do not work.  They time average their force, linear or torque; to zero.  This is not the case for the UFG or MLT.
 
2)  Sorry, I'm not following.  What is vibrating at relativistic velocities?
 
3)  Karl, in order to postulate a mass fluctuation two previous theories have to be true: a) Mach's Principle, posits the gravitic interconnection between all the universe's various parts is the cause of inertia and b) General Relativity.  If you do not hold to Mach's Principle, there is no theoretical basis for expecting mass fluctuations of any sort.  Only Jim Woodward's theory predicts mass fluctuations or Mach Effects (M-E) and it is only able to do so because it relies upon Mach's Principle.
 
4)  This has almost nothing to do with gravitational waves and they are not the best way to look at this issue.
 
5)  All GR theorists believe that gravity propagates at the speed of light.  It is not instantaneous. 
 
6)  As you say, if there's to be discussion of Dr. White's theory, it deserves its own thread.
 
Cal, M-E theory clearly says that mass can be temporarily fluctuated under very specific conditions.  When those conditions obtain, the mass will fluctuate positively and negatively, twice each cycle.  So for instance given the data above posted by StarDrive, the rf driving frequency is 40 kHz.  the mass fluctuation is really found at the 2 omega or at 80 khz.  Lets suppose you have a 40 khz thruster rather than the rotator we've been talking about.  The rotator demonstrates M-E but it does not generate thrust.  For thrust you need to rectify the M-E as is done in a UFG or MLT.
 
Lets take a UFG or MLT operating at 40 khz and 50% mass fluctuation with two g of active mass.  That will mean that during the first and third quarter cycle, the mass will fluctuate to 3 g and during the second and last quarter cycle, the mass will fluctuate to 1 g.  What we do is push it in one direction when it's heavy, and pull it in the other direction when it's light.  That yields net thrust.

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 03/16/2009 06:47 pm

Woodward's conjecture does NOT create mass from nothing. 


Good start

Quote
His conjecture states that the APPARENT inertial mass of a local mass can be transiently REDUCED by shielding it from the universal G/I field that give rise to the property we call inertia.

This actually reminds me of my MPhys project which was a speculative investigation into quantised particle masses being fixed by the presence of a fifth dimension. Great fun and perfectly legitimate theoretical physics (a precursor to the infamous string theory) but not the basis to begin building machines. OK on...

Quote

This G/I field shielding effect is proportional to the local mass’ applied acceleration times the double derivative of the energy flux passing through the cap dielectric mass in question, so by definition it is a transient shielding effect in real systems.

My eyes almost glazed at this point but I pick up on dielectric. I know what that is. It's used in capacitors to increase the capacitance. So going back: acceleration times the second derivative.... with respect to what? Time? Position? Ambiguous to say the least. OK on...

Quote
As to why this mass fluctuation effect doesn't show up in everyday devices, it’s simply due to the fact that these transient mass fluctuations almost always time average to zero over one excitation period such as in the sine waves used in RF transmitters. 

RF, where back to electromagnetism. OK. You know, these mass fluctuations remind me of the well-known quantum mechanical effect of the pair creation of virtual particles. Is that what you mean? They happen on a time scale inversely proportional to the mass involved and so they are never directly observable. But you've confused me with your analogy of radio transmitters and sine waves.

Quote

The only way one could see a net thrust from such a device is if a third force is applied to the mass fluctuating dielectric mass in a push-heavy, pull-light force rectification process that has to be timed precisely with these time varying mass fluctuations or you end up with zip net forces.


Aha, a third force. I see. So far I count two forces, gravity and elecro-magnetism. Neither of these get us anywhere and so we need a third force. To get things moving. Yes. I agree.

Quote

Now, if you don’t like my “jargonistic” description of this M-E effect, which is my good faith effort to convey these ideas to folks who aren’t familiar with same, then all I can recommend to you now is to look up Woodward’s URL on this topic and the many other related physics papers in peer reviewed journals if you want to see and understand all the gory mathematical details contained in their derivations, and the experimental data backing them up. 


Wow, this is a long sentence. I did look at the URL and I notice that this Woodward is in humanities.

Quote
However, be prepared to spend several years in the process as I have done.

Cool.


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/16/2009 07:46 pm
Dr. Woodward's PhD is in the history of gravity physics.  This is probably one reason he was able to solve as he did, because he was more intimately aware of those who had gone before him than the average PhD in physics.

Please don't miss the note I posted to you just above yours.


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/16/2009 10:04 pm
Please explain how these gees translate. This is obviously gross gees at some point in the cycle, not net thrust between opposing positive and negative thrusts.

They are the radial bulk acceleration centripetal gees (9.81 m/sec^2) at the radius of the cap-ring when spun at the noted revolutions per second rotation rate.  You can calculate them from the known radius r = 0.056 meters of the cap-ring asssembly and the centripetal acceleration equation A= (tangential velocity)^2 / radius r.

OK, I can speak a bit of this cause I used to build mechanical models that used masses and changed the orbital radius as the mass went around the cycle (and likewise changed the orbital velocity, in a way that generated more centripital force on one side of the centrifuge than the other). My simulations of these models would subtract the small centripetal force on one side of the centrifuge from the larger force generated on the other side where the masses were moving at a higher angular velocity. While most of the g-forces cancelled each other out, the excess was the useful force imposed on the model to provide impulse.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 03/16/2009 11:09 pm
I won't push this again. Just pointing out unresolved issues and potential applications.

1. I already went over this months ago. Until the entire experiment, including power supply, is on that apparatus in a configuration that can distinguish between thrust and torque, there's still the danger that the MLT generates torque not thrust. Personally, I'm willing to wait till someone can generate enough thrust (or torque as the case may be) to easily verify this.

2. Let me elaborate. The capacitors in the MLT undergo periodic acceleration (say via vibration or rotation). As that acceleration increases, the capacitors will eventually reach relativistic speeds.

3. I point out here that one doesn't need the Machian principle. General Relativity and Maxwell's equations should do. We do not need to explain momentum transfer to the rest of the universe in the way you describe. The strength of my approach is that there doesn't even need to be mass in the rest of the universe. It is a strictly local explanation for the phenomenon.

4. Note the subject of this thread, "Propellantless Field Propulsion and application". Communication that can broadcast without much attenuation through the Earth at the speed of light could be a big money application of this technology. It'd greatly reduce the development cost of the propulsion application, if it exists, by creating a large market of off-the-shelf, relatively cheap components that should be able to generate reasonable levels of thrust.

5. We don't have sufficient experimental evidence of this aspect of general relativity. It's a near future application that could open up some money for MLT development. I consider it low-lying fruit.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/16/2009 11:27 pm
4. Note the subject of this thread, "Propellantless Field Propulsion and application". Communication that can broadcast without much attenuation through the Earth at the speed of light could be a big money application of this technology. It'd greatly reduce the development cost of the propulsion application, if it exists, by creating a large market of off-the-shelf, relatively cheap components that should be able to generate reasonable levels of thrust.

Thats not the sort of communication hes speaking of. What he's talking about is the Feinman interpretation of quantum mechanics of the path integrals. For instance, optical refraction happens cause the speed of light in glass, for instance, is slower than in air or vacuum, as a result, the virtual photon follows every possible path between point a and b through air and glass, but becomes real when the fastest path is found and the probability cloud is collapsed soonest. Quantum entangled pairs do a similar thing except their path integrals includes paths backwards in time to communicate the most effectively.

Feinman had this breakthrough when he started thinking about how so many nuclear reaction trees are equally valid with T going positive or negative. He figured out an anti-photon is really a photon going backwards in time, for instance. The main reason why there is so much matter left after the big bang is that there was an equal amount of antimatter left after both sides annihilated each other, but the antimatter left over was going backwards in time.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/16/2009 11:39 pm
Karl,

1) You don't understand conservation.  You're drawing a distinction now for half a year that is completely spurious.  All momentum is conserved, linear and angular alike and your insistence that others need to cow tow to your specifications simply demonstrate you do not understand the issues at hand.

There are reasons to put the entire thruster and power system on the ARC Lite arm but they have nothing to do with conservation.  They concern protocol issues and are at this point, truly irrelevant.

2) No.  The speeds of the ceramic lattice attained in MLT's and UFG's do not come close to relativistic and will not so long as we continue to work outside wormhole territory where dm<m is the case.  You can do your own calculations here if you like.  Try this calculator and put in the figures for contemporary experiement: solve for A and provide F=40,000 and D =0.001mm.  You will not get relatavistic V's and we don't need them:

http://www.spaceagecontrol.com/calcsinm.htm?col=col1&V11=&F11=&A21=&F21=&V31=&A31=&F12=&D12=&A22=&F22=&A32=&D32=&what=A&F13=40000&D13=.001&F23=&V23=&V33=&D33=&A14=&D14=&V24=&D24=&A34=&V34=&units=Metric&submit=Calculate

3) I'm sorry Karl, but if you have another theory that posits mass fluctuation, please bring it forward.  You're making a vacuous claim here.  Only Jim Woodward has such a theory.  I know because I was paid to research this and I know, just as LockMart knows, that only Jim Woodward has such a theory.

4) If you want to pursue High Frequency Gravity Waves for communications, track James Baker and the Chinese effort but know that Baker is not offering propulsion.  He's 40 orders magnitude below what is needed for propulsion.  Check:

http://www.gravwave.com/

5) As I said, ALL GR theorists believe that gravity propagates at light speed.  If you know better, show us what you know.  GR says you're wrong here.

Nothing against you, Karl.  We need guys like you tracking what's happening with M-E research and again, let me offer you the invite to the mailing list should you take a serious interest.  Just let me know.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 03/17/2009 03:14 am
1. Conservation of angular momentum is not violated. In the Machian model, it's easy to generate torque. Push the rest of the universe from spot A on a rigid structure and an opposite oriented push from a different spot B. The spatial difference between the otherwise equal and opposite forces generates torque. Angular momentum is conserved because either a) you are rotating the rest of the universe Machian style, or b) your gravitational waves (or possibly other particle/wave phenomena) are carrying away angular momentum. Either way you chose to explain it, angular momentum is conserved. There is experimental support too. We know it can happen from studying the orbital decay of binary pulsars (which collectively lose angular momentum to the rest of the universe).

As you probably can guess, I really don't see a serious distinction between these viewpoints. My take however is that abstracting out the interaction with the rest of the universe (which in my view is what is happening when you consider a Machian model) means you are losing some information about the nature of that interaction. For example, what is the flow of energy and momentum from the MLT?

2. I don't have any concerns about the model below dm<m. But I do disagree with your interpretation of the dm>m region, particular your use of the term "wormhole". Since the physical experiments are well in the dm<m range, I don't see a serious issue here.

3. General relativity and electromagnetism. They would predict a slightly higher inertia for a charged capacitor over an uncharged capacitor. That's pretty much all you need to generate net thrust (or perhaps torque). My view is that the Machian model of physics is already incorporated into general relativity (and related approximations like special relativity and Newtonian mechanics).

4. Thanks for the tip.

5. It still remains that there is an observation gap here.  Not every physicist buys into general relativity. And even if there were uniform consensus, there are on occasion experiments to verify the consensus. Keep in mind that experimental physicists find ever shrinking upper bounds on the mass of a photon even though it is generally accepted that the mass of the photon is zero. Novel observations that back a commonly accepted view still are useful.

GI-Thruster, thanks for the invite. I'll send you my email address.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/17/2009 04:43 pm
Em, yes. . .BOB Baker.  I knew that.  :-)

In case I haven't been clear, there's a large number of tech savvy persons both writing in this thread and lurking.  If any of you want to be included on Jim Woodward's weekly general mailing so you're up to date as to the work at Fullerton, please drop me a note.  Write a sentence or two about who you are, what you do and why you're interested to track progress at Fullerton and Dr. Woodward may include this as an introduction to the list when he adds you, so that others know a little about you.

The general list is NOT a discussion list.  It is an update list to those in USG and private industry who want to keep tabs on the progress at Fullerton.  If however you'd like to be involved in discussions of the physics, engineering, data analysis, etc., you can write me or Paul March and we'll include you in those sorts of discussions.  It's a great way to learn about Mach Effects and where we hope to see this all go in the future.  Just drop me a note and I'll write you back from my normal email.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/18/2009 07:06 am
3. General relativity and electromagnetism. They would predict a slightly higher inertia for a charged capacitor over an uncharged capacitor. That's pretty much all you need to generate net thrust (or perhaps torque). My view is that the Machian model of physics is already incorporated into general relativity (and related approximations like special relativity and Newtonian mechanics).


Any torques generated can be nulled to create precessionary thrust by using two counterrotating devices. I've also done this on a hydraulic model.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/18/2009 07:11 am

Wow, this is a long sentence. I did look at the URL and I notice that this Woodward is in humanities.


Woodward has his BS and MA in Physics. Trying to discredit him as some sort of sociologist playing at physics wont work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 03/18/2009 10:52 am
3. General relativity and electromagnetism. They would predict a slightly higher inertia for a charged capacitor over an uncharged capacitor. That's pretty much all you need to generate net thrust (or perhaps torque). My view is that the Machian model of physics is already incorporated into general relativity (and related approximations like special relativity and Newtonian mechanics).

Any torques generated can be nulled to create precessionary thrust by using two counterrotating devices. I've also done this on a hydraulic model.

Precession is a torque. I have no idea what precessionary thrust is.

But come to think of it, there are mechanical ways to convert torque into thrust. If I have a spinning wheel (say a donut-shaped rotating space station and I release mass that was clamped to the wheel, then I have generated thrust. The released mass (which is moving) is the reaction mass, and my station must have an equal and opposite momentum in order to preserve momentum of the system. Airplane propellers immersed in atmosphere are another example. These examples involve some sort of propellant, so I don't know how relevant they would be to us in this thread.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: LegendCJS on 03/18/2009 11:18 am

Wow, this is a long sentence. I did look at the URL and I notice that this Woodward is in humanities.


Woodward has his BS and MA in Physics. Trying to discredit him as some sort of sociologist playing at physics wont work.

We all want so badly for something like the Woodward effect to be true.  But everyone should know that its easier to trust a BS over a high school diploma, an MA  (what the hell is an MA anyway?  Physics is a science, why doesn't he have an MS?) over a BS, and a PhD over an MA or MS.

So you have to admit that a PhD who can back up Woodward's derivations and experimental explanations would significantly help the credibility.  Because despite how much I want it to be true, I was firmly convinced that its all not true by reading the J.H. Whealton report.  At http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/pres/111404.pdf. 

So I come to this thread asking if there is a formal rebuttal to the above in existence or in the works.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/18/2009 12:30 pm
As I said earlier. Woodward's PhD is in the History of Gravity Physics.  That's why it's considered a humanity.  It is however also Physics.

Yes, a formal rebuttal of the Oak Ridge Boys existed before they wrote the above.  They are obviously wrong in several ways and these were pointed out at length by both Dr. Woodward and by Tom Mahood.  I'll see if I can get hold of the rebuttal if you like.  It's long.  Longer than the ORB's complaint since answering an objection is far more work than making an objection.

So you know, the ORB's tried to do a replication of the work and failed.  They failed because they did not follow direction and their apparatus was flawed.  They then came up with these objections that demonstrate they can't do the math or high school physics (no joke.) 

So yeah, I'll see what I can get hold of for you or perhaps Paul has Tom's rebuttal?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/18/2009 12:44 pm
"But come to think of it, there are mechanical ways to convert torque into thrust. If I have a spinning wheel (say a donut-shaped rotating space station and I release mass that was clamped to the wheel, then I have generated thrust. The released mass (which is moving) is the reaction mass, and my station must have an equal and opposite momentum in order to preserve momentum of the system."

This is true.  FYI, the patent office is full of patents for propellantless propulsion by folks who thought they could get thrust from a gyroscope.  You can't because all momentum is conserved.  All these types of proposed propulsion devices have failed because they attempt to violate simple physics.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Jim on 03/18/2009 01:11 pm

Snip

They are obviously wrong in several ways

Snip

They failed because they did not follow direction and their apparatus was flawed.  They then came up with these objections that demonstrate they can't do the math or high school physics (no joke.) 


Sounds like the argument is applicable to both sides.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/18/2009 01:20 pm
Well, Jim, if you want to make an issue of the fact I can't do this sort of physics you can, but I was not around when this happened.  This trajedy occured years ago because the Oak Ridge Boys acted with a total disregard for the truth.  They had plenty of opportunity to learn from the guys at Fullerton and instead, maintained they had it all figured out.  They did not.  Now this paper is on record and the rotator is daily demonstrating these guys are wrong.

That's embarrassing. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mrmandias on 03/18/2009 01:25 pm

In case I haven't been clear, there's a large number of tech savvy persons both writing in this thread and lurking.  If any of you want to be included on Jim Woodward's weekly general mailing so you're up to date as to the work at Fullerton, please drop me a note.  Write a sentence or two about who you are, what you do and why you're interested to track progress at Fullerton and Dr. Woodward may include this as an introduction to the list when he adds you, so that others know a little about you.

Some of us who may not be interested in or able to join your discussion lists and mailing lists still appreciate the periodic updates in this forum.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/18/2009 03:21 pm
You're most welcome, mrmandias.

Legend,

"I was firmly convinced that its all not true by reading the J.H. Whealton report.  At

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

So I come to this thread asking if there is a formal rebuttal to the above in existence or in the works.:

There are three relevant papers Paul and I are trying to figure a way to post.  There is Tom's first response (this was all back in '97-2002) which I believe concerns chiefly the protocols used and the claim by ORNL that the Fullerton results can be explained as thermal effects.  There was Jim Woodward's response which is written at the level of a PhD physicist and which most people will not be able to grasp fully (myself included.) Finally there is a simple empirical study of the "California Booster", which utterly puts the cap on the ORNL complaint by showing they do not understand the physics.  In addition, there is a more history based telling of the story, a recounting of events that I'm trying to get clearance to post here as it is fascinating.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/18/2009 05:05 pm
Thanks Paul.  Lets see if I can load the cali booster paper. . .

And Legend, please do stop back and let us know what you think of these responses.

Update: my apologies to those 6 of you who have already DLed the wrong paper.  I had loaded one of the two Paul had already left for your appraisal.  Here attached should be the cali booster paper.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/19/2009 02:46 am
A telling of these events by Jim Woodward:

The Oak Ridge Boys (1997 – 2002):

"In the fall, following the BPP Workshop, David Hamilton of the DoE Engineering Directorate contacted us at CSUF.  He was interested in doing a replication of the work going on in the lab and had secured preliminary support from higher level management.  The following January he, John McKeever (ORNL), Bruce Tuttle (ceramicist, Sandia NL), and Don King (Sandia) came out to CSUF to discuss their plans with Tom and me.  We were joined by Paul March (then working for Lockheed who had been tasked by Graham O’Neil to look into exotic propulsion schemes).  They told us of their intent to build devices considerably larger than those we had been working with – hockey pucks as they came to be called.  We cautioned them that scaling by a couple of orders of magnitude or more in one step was not an advisable approach.  They built hockey pucks nonetheless.  And the following September a couple of Sandia folks were back soliciting our suggestions.
 
The plans conveyed to us in the fall of ’98 indicated that our advice had been taken.  But at that time another issue came up.  One of the folks at ORNL hit upon the idea that consideration of the vdm/dt term in Newton’s second law had been ignored in the development of Mach effects, and that when it was taken into account, complete cancellation of expected effects occurred.  For a few weeks it looked like this might in fact be a reasonable argument (alas, even to me, notwithstanding that I had actually considered this possibility several years earlier and dismissed it for sound reasons).  Of those involved, only Paul March was clear headed enough (and stubborn enough not to be cowed by a bunch of physics types) to reject the argument.  vdm/dt is not irrelevant to consideration of a closed system (it completes ma + vdm/dt = 0 for a rocket for example, but it doesn’t mean that rockets do not accelerate).  But it is irrelevant for a Mach effect thruster (as one can always pick the instantaneous frame of rest of the thruster where vdm/dt = 0 for analysis).  vdm/dt, in the case of a Mach effect thruster, represents the momentum flux in the field which does not act on the thruster (as, analogously, it represents the momentum flux in the exhaust plume of a rocket which does not act on the rocket).

Getting folks to appreciate this point of elementary physics proved almost impossible in some cases.  Ultimately, a “California booster” was built to demonstrate that as a matter of fact vdm/dt “forces” do not necessarily act on the moving object undergoing a change in mass.

While this was transpiring, one of the Oak Ridge Boys had the clever idea that gravity had been ignored in the derivation of Mach effects.  Accordingly, he asserted that gravity had to be added into the Mach effect field equation.  Miraculously, when this was done, Mach effects disappeared!  (There was a sign error in this calculation.  Otherwise they would have gotten double gravity effects.)  No amount of explaining that the Mach effect derivation is a derivation of the gravity field equation (where the Poisson equation for gravity is recovered when time-dependent terms are set equal to zero) could convince them that gravity was already accounted for in the Mach effect field equation (that is, the d’Alembertian of the potential is equal to some source terms).

What really was going on at this time it seems is that the Oak Ridge Boys actually got the experiment they described to us in the fall of ’98 running in December of that year.  Almost immediately they got “interesting” results.  And the experiment was taken out of their hands.  Or so reliable sources (you know who you are) told us.  Repeated attempts to confirm this development with the local leader of the Oak Ridge Boys by Tom and me met with silence.  The rest of this story goes that the work, a black project that continued to yield “interesting” results was eventually abandoned when the extreme risks of working blind with the wormhole term were contemplated.  If there is anything to this story, then the Oak Ridge Boys’ attacks on Mach effects should be understood as a disinformation operation."

-------------------------

Just as an aside, I was talking with my brother the lawyer about all this today and he agrees with me that the most sensible interpretation of these events is that ORNL got positive results and some other USG branch such as CIA stepped in and handed them a gag order.  The work was moved and the scientists at ORNL would have gotten some small compensation.  I asked Rodg what he thought of hiring a private investigator to determine if there's a path of money to follow the scientists and he replied "You could do that.  That would be a great way to end up in jail.  This is classified national security stuff.  You sniff around, prepare to pay the consequences."
 
So maybe we just need to focus on generating thrust. . .

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/19/2009 05:55 am

Snip

They are obviously wrong in several ways

Snip

They failed because they did not follow direction and their apparatus was flawed.  They then came up with these objections that demonstrate they can't do the math or high school physics (no joke.) 


Sounds like the argument is applicable to both sides.

Ya, I love it when you build something that works and some dude with a bit piece of sheepskin on his wall says its impossible for what is working to exist. That sort of event USED to be called 'scientific progress'.

Been there, done that, got the federal gag order.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/19/2009 12:27 pm
A friend was telling my brother how he loves doing advanced metallurgy except that there are no patents.  "What do you mean no patents? my brother, the one trained in patent law; asked.

"Oh yeah, every time anyone in this country comes up with something truly useful, USG turns up and takes it.  No one gets patents these days.  They just get settlements."

The land of the free. . .

Of course, if USG gagged the ORNL scientists rather than Jim Woodward, then they didn't even have to pay out much in the way of a settlement.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mrmandias on 03/26/2009 09:05 pm
I'm just a caveman lawyer, but if this theory can be experimentally verified, wouldn't it disprove, or at least require serious modifications to your current working model?

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23198/
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/27/2009 01:49 am
I'm not fit to pass judgement on this either but until a physicist happens along I should point out that the arxiv site is not peer reviewed.  It is a place where some folks post early works but most times, where cranks post only works that would never pass scrutiny with a real journal.  You'd be amazed at the rubbish that can be found there.  Says nothing about your find, however; save that it needs a real review.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Jim on 03/27/2009 03:58 am
This thread has turned to crap with its nonsense talk of gag orders and the USG hiding things.  Right up there with the oil companies buying up plans for 300 mpg carburetors and Area 51 alien technology.

Anybody claiming such a thing has no credibility


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kneecaps on 03/27/2009 08:22 am
This thread has turned to crap with its nonsense talk of gag orders and the USG hiding things.  Right up there with the oil companies buying up plans for 300 mpg carburetors and Area 51 alien technology.

Anybody claiming such a thing has no credibility


 ;D   I second that!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 03/27/2009 08:51 am

Wow, this is a long sentence. I did look at the URL and I notice that this Woodward is in humanities.


Woodward has his BS and MA in Physics. Trying to discredit him as some sort of sociologist playing at physics wont work.

MA = Master of Arts. Seems he gave up science after his first degree!!! I, on the other hand, am a first class MPhys = Master of Physics.

Outranked and overruled! Hehe
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 03/27/2009 08:53 am
This thread has turned to crap with its nonsense talk of gag orders and the USG hiding things.  Right up there with the oil companies buying up plans for 300 mpg carburetors and Area 51 alien technology.

Anybody claiming such a thing has no credibility




I disagree, Jim. This thread turned to crap at approximately this point:

The only true way to make a starship is to be able to create a spacedrive that can modifiy gravity and/or inertia.  Everthing else talked about here except perhaps the EM drive is just for use on solar system scale missions. 

Gene Rodenberry pretty much nailed it when he created the Starship Enterprise that was equipped with inertia modification "impulse-drive" system for solar system based travels and a wormhole based "warp-drive" for interstellar jumps measured in days to weeks and not tens to hundreds of years for both the ship crew and the folks back home.  If any of you are curious how this might be done, we have to look at the confulence of General Relativity and Quntum Mechancis to first find the means to transiently modify the inertial properties of mass by manipulating its stored energy and bulk acceleration of that mass relative to the distant stars.  That Mach/Lorentz technology will provide us the Startrek like "impluse drive" we need to start down this path.  We then use this same "gravinertial" technology to create traversalble wormholes shortcuts through spacetime that our starships can use to star hop.   

If you think this is all science fiction that's your privilege, but the peer reviewed experimental data showing that this is all possible with enough development effort put into it over the next 25-to-50 years is readily aviable on the web and elsewhere, like the American Institute of Physics (AIP) if you care to look for it. 

These are people who are trying to shoe-horn reality into fantasy. It makes me feel quite ill.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kneecaps on 03/27/2009 09:37 am

These are people who are trying to shoe-horn reality into fantasy. It makes me feel quite ill.

Of even greater concern to me, is how it can all sound feasible to the layman. Large swaths of society simply take things they read on the internet at face value. Pseudo/Bad science can sound very attractive.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 03/27/2009 09:50 am
It is playing to peoples fantasies and half-held beliefs. Its in the same league as cold-reading and sayances. For the most part I feel that people can believe what they like, so long as they can take reasonable criticism. However, this website is made of better stuff and I'm chatting away here merely to draw attention so that this thread might be closed down...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kneecaps on 03/27/2009 09:58 am
It is playing to peoples fantasies and half-held beliefs. Its in the same league as cold-reading and sayances. For the most part I feel that people can believe what they like, so long as they can take reasonable criticism. However, this website is made of better stuff and I'm chatting away here merely to draw attention so that this thread might be closed down...

Closing it down just fuels the zeal....
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mrmandias on 03/27/2009 01:43 pm
These folks aren't asking for money and they're actually doing experiments.  What's the harm in that?  And, no, by harm I don't mean offending someone's self-important certainty about how things work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/29/2009 08:59 am
This thread has turned to crap with its nonsense talk of gag orders and the USG hiding things.  Right up there with the oil companies buying up plans for 300 mpg carburetors and Area 51 alien technology.

Anybody claiming such a thing has no credibility


Jim, I've had more experience running up against the government classifying 'inconvenient' patent applications that you have any idea about.

Lets start with the guy who invented the underwater microphones used by the Navy for sub detection today. That guy invented them to listen to whales. When he submitted the patent, the Navy classified the design cause it was so good, came to his lab and seized all his equipment, and now in order to use his own invention he has to ask the Navy for permission to use their equipment.

Imagine how THAT feels.

Theres plenty more stories like that where that one came from.

How about cutting it with attacking people who complain about getting burned by the security apparatus?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/30/2009 05:48 pm
If nothing else, threads like this keep the real spaceflight-related threads cleaner. :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 03/30/2009 06:10 pm
It is playing to peoples fantasies and half-held beliefs. Its in the same league as cold-reading and sayances. For the most part I feel that people can believe what they like, so long as they can take reasonable criticism. However, this website is made of better stuff and I'm chatting away here merely to draw attention so that this thread might be closed down...

... which is a poor negative motive. The guys pushing this have proposed a physics theory to explain all this so this isn't just a Keshe fantasy dream. Now it maybe the physics is fundamentally wrong somewhere and this goes nowhere but this thread would still be interesting even then in showing how new advanced physics theorems get proposed and either accepted or rejected in light of experimental data. It's up to negative guys like you to find flaws in either the theorem or the data rather than just point and laugh. People laughed at Newton and Einstein too because their ideas were so fantastic and so out of everyday experience. If however on the off chance this is all true, then well, NSF would have had yet another public scoop ;).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 03/31/2009 12:02 am
Actually, nobody probably ever laughed at the ideas of Newton and Einstein. Nor to be honest, do I hear much in the way of laughter in this thread either. My personal opinion has been that some ideas are relatively practical even to the point of having potential near future application while others are likely to never be developed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/31/2009 12:36 pm
It is playing to peoples fantasies and half-held beliefs. Its in the same league as cold-reading and sayances. For the most part I feel that people can believe what they like, so long as they can take reasonable criticism. However, this website is made of better stuff and I'm chatting away here merely to draw attention so that this thread might be closed down...

If you have an issue with it then you can always report it to a moderator. As this concept was originally included as part of NASA's breakthrough propulsion research then I see no reason why it shouldn't be here.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 03/31/2009 09:58 pm
Just a few quick comments as I only skimmed this last page and only have a few minutes:

mlorrey: "Jim, I've had more experience running up against the government classifying 'inconvenient' patent applications that you have any idea about."

Yes well, anyone familiar with the way the law is written, and why it is so written, has some sympathy here.  The law is written to allow USG to "take" any technology they can convince the proper federal judge is in the nation's defense interests.  That is fact beyond dispute.  And as I believe I have already posted, there are many fields such as metallurgy that don't even grant patents anymore because USG takes EVERY useful technology and pays a settlement, rather than allow other nations access to what become "state secrets."

Marsavian: "The guys pushing this have proposed a physics theory to explain all this so this isn't just a Keshe fantasy dream."

To be clear, Dr. Woodward's discovery concerning how to connect Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GR) to Mach's Principle (so named by Einstein himself) came years before he began seeing technological applications for his theory.  He was working on the origin of inertia issue, not propulsion engineering.  His patents came years after his peer reviewed papers published in places like Foundations of Physics.  Getting a patent granted means nothing with regards the technology is viable.  Getting your theory past peer review is an entirely different matter.  Dr. Woodward is a Ph.D in the history of gravity physics and anyone who reviews his publicly available work will be instantly impressed with the tremendous breadth and width of his knowledge, especially concerning General Relativity.  He regularly demonstrates mastery in this subject, unlike those posting in this thread who claim to "overrule" others because they earned a masters degree.

Lampy: "As this concept was originally included as part of NASA's breakthrough propulsion research then I see no reason why it shouldn't be here."

Yes, in fact, in addition to being identified by Marc Millis as viable technology needing further research during the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project (BPP); until funding cuts at MSC, Tony Robertson was leading official NASA discovery science on the MLT.  That work ended when VSE and all the budget cuts came along, because of the budget cuts--not because the technology seemed fictional.  NASA reviewed all this years ago and chose to do this research because they know this is worth doing.

Finally, if I may offer my own aside here--this is the Advanced Concepts folder.  The whole point of the folder is to consider future concepts that are not flying yet and perhaps never will.  Of course there will be some dispute whether a technology that has yet to prove itself is a viable technology.

When I was contracted as a philosopher of technology to survey all the hair-brained propulsion schemes out there, and let me tell you there are more than a few; in order to identify any technologies that can be considered "emergent", I used two criteria to distinguish between what is seemingly legit, and what is garbage.  I look for both a) consistent, peer-reviewed theory and b) empirical evidence.  I'm pretty harsh in my judgements about what meets these criteria and after many long months came to the conclusion that ONLY Dr. Woodward's M-E theory met both my criteria.  Some months afterward I found out that LockMart had done the same study (their "Millennial Study") and had come to the same conclusion.

So, if someone here wants to call this "Ooogie Booogie" science, I suggest you skip me and go hassle the Ph.D physicists at LockMart.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/05/2009 12:13 am
Quote
When I was contracted as a philosopher of technology to survey all the hair-brained propulsion schemes out there, and let me tell you there are more than a few; in order to identify any technologies that can be considered "emergent", I used two criteria to distinguish between what is seemingly legit, and what is garbage.  I look for both a) consistent, peer-reviewed theory and b) empirical evidence.  I'm pretty harsh in my judgements about what meets these criteria and after many long months came to the conclusion that ONLY Dr. Woodward's M-E theory met both my criteria.  Some months afterward I found out that LockMart had done the same study (their "Millennial Study") and had come to the same conclusion.

So, if someone here wants to call this "Ooogie Booogie" science, I suggest you skip me and go hassle the Ph.D physicists at LockMart.

If I'm not mistaken Boeing also conducted their own AG studies but I think theirs was more along the line of the superconductor-related anomalies researched by Podlentkov. Thanks for the heads up about the Millenial Study, I didn't know the M-E theory was in there.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/05/2009 12:36 am
My pleasure Lampy.  BTW, Boeing did contact Podlentkov about his work and offered to bankroll some investigation there, but Pod wanted an ungodly amount of money, essentially to be treated as royalty.  There have been others to contact Pod but there is still a vast disconnect between what's been claimed and what's been verified.  There haven't ever been any verifications of Pod's work and since there is no theory to explain the effect claimed, I can't personally put much stock in it.  There are just so many Russian frauds going around in the field that it makes no sense to invest.  Same with the MAK study which is essentially a Searl rip-off.  I once was talking with the American investor who was paying for the Russian MAK study.  The Russians had quite a team on staff and some impressive hardware.  Still, they had no results and like Searl, no theory to explain the claimed effect.  I asked the investor "why would you invest in this research when it is obviously taken from Searl, and neither the Russian team nor Searl can give an explanation about why what they're doing ought to work?"   He answered "they've never lied to me" but he couldn't answer how he knew the entire research program wasn't one big lie!

It's true that given the proper motivation, like money, many people will just believe what they want to believe.  Searl, MAK, Pod, all looks like garbage to me.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/10/2009 04:39 pm
Mastering space travel, meaning bringing in the same sorts of benefits we see in air travel, is right now a pipe dream.  So long as we have rockets and nothing else, we do not have mastery.  For mastery of space travel, we need at the least a "1 gee solution" meaning, spacecraft that can accelerate constantly in their travels.  If we had a 1 gee solution spacecraft, we could be on the Moon in 4-5 hours, on Mars in 2-5 days, at the asteroids in 6 days, Jupiter in 7 and Saturn in 9 days.  Without warping spacetime, a 1 gee solution would open up space travel to a new age and make it affordable for the average Joe. 

If you had said 100 years ago that for the equivalent of what a 16 year old can make in 3 days labor, or a doctor or lawyer can make in an hour, that one could buy a ticket and fly across the continent in 4 hours; people would have thought you were crazy.  But for space travel to ever be for the common man or woman, we need just this same sort of crazy solution.

Talking about Advanced Concepts is great fun but when it distracts us from more appropriate goals, it can do us harm.  We ought to be thinking on the 1 gee solution.  Thinking about colonizing other worlds without such a solution is an exercise in delusion, comparable to considering colonizing the Americans from Europe with a row boat.  Yes, with a really great row boat you can cross the Atlantic but you can never make it so huge numbers of others can as well.  Row boats just can't do what is needed and for colonization and neither can rockets.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/13/2009 06:06 am
I wonder what progress has been made with the test rigs? Is it all just electromagnetic interference or are we looking at real thrust? Even if this only ever gives us 0.01g that still gives us the solar system and possibly the stars.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/13/2009 04:26 pm
The latest on the rotator, which is not a thruster but only gives a way to observe M-E; is that the instrumentation amp got smoked week before last and is under repair and upgrade.  I would not expect new rotator results in the next week.  The work is also going forward on the UFG construction and on some filters, matching systems, etc.  We're hoping to see some thrust measurements come from Fullerton before Dr. Woodward goes on extended vacation in mid May.  I'll keep the forum posted as to any reportable results.  However, it is fair to generalize that none of the results reported from Woodward's lab could have been E or M coupling, ion wind or thermal.  The controls are all appropriate to demonstrate this.  The issue is not the controls or protocols used.  The issue is we just need to see more thrust. (More than 10 uN we hope.  Perhaps in the 100's of uN.)  Hoping for that in the first two weeks of May.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/14/2009 04:57 am
The latest on the rotator, which is not a thruster but only gives a way to observe M-E; is that the instrumentation amp got smoked week before last and is under repair and upgrade.  I would not expect new rotator results in the next week.  The work is also going forward on the UFG construction and on some filters, matching systems, etc.  We're hoping to see some thrust measurements come from Fullerton before Dr. Woodward goes on extended vacation in mid May.  I'll keep the forum posted as to any reportable results.  However, it is fair to generalize that none of the results reported from Woodward's lab could have been E or M coupling, ion wind or thermal.  The controls are all appropriate to demonstrate this.  The issue is not the controls or protocols used.  The issue is we just need to see more thrust. (More than 10 uN we hope.  Perhaps in the 100's of uN.)  Hoping for that in the first two weeks of May.


Lampy & G/I Thruster:

Dr. Woodward's rotary experiment has already nailed down the existence of a mass fluctuation like signal that can be used to generate a unidirectional force, as demonstrated by the data plots I previously posted on this web site.  And his 2002 IIT experimental results clearly demonstrated a 1.2% weight loss in a 125 gram test article, which he believes and I concur represent the first clear demonstration of the Mach-Effect's wormhole term as is shown in the attached slide.

As to the maximum magnitude of the demonstrated G/I based thruster experiments, Dr. Woodward's Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) tests never produced more than 10 micro-Newtons running at a drive frequency of ~50 kHz.  And several tests at ~400 kHz and 2.0 MHz by three others experimenters provided null results due to the lack of bulk acceleration in those designs.  However, my MLT-2004 running at 2.2 MHz, and Jim's and my Mach-2MHz running at 2.15 MHz and 3.80 MHz, which did allow for bulk acceleration of the MLT caps demonstrated thrust levels of up to 0.5 gram force or ~5.0 milli-Newtons back in the 2004 to 2006 time frame.  These high frequency MLT test runs though were not performed in a vacuum, soft or hard, so some doubt about their validity still remains, but since the peak voltages in both test series never went over 200 V-peak, the likelihood of ion wind artifacts at these thrust levels is next to nil.  Especailly considering that the Mach-2MHz test article was contained in a steel Faraday shield.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 04/14/2009 11:12 am
What would it take to start generating much more force, just scaling ?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/14/2009 11:45 am
The techniques for scaling thrust for the MLT and UFG are different.  The UFG for instance is fairly locked into its 40 kHz or so running frequency because the stacks used generally will not resonate at much higher frequency and thrust scales to the cube of frequency.  So one way to generate more thrust with a UFG would be to use a shorter stack that operates at higher frequency.  Even though you'd have half the ceramic and half the displacement and bulk acceleration, you could have 4X the thrust.  That's what we'd like to see and I believe Jim has built a pair of shorter UFG stacks perhaps for this sort of investigation.  Realize however that in most of these tests, it is the power equipment that is the real bear--impedance matching the power system--and these systems are all frequency locked.  Jim doesn't have a $30K broadband impedance matcher (although he sure could use one and they're available.)  It is most often these very practical electrical engineering matters that stand in the way of immediate progress.  That's just what happens when you're working without funding.  With even small, sub-million dollar funding the work would certainly be progressing far faster.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/14/2009 03:34 pm
The techniques for scaling thrust for the MLT and UFG are different.  The UFG for instance is fairly locked into its 40 kHz or so running frequency because the stacks used generally will not resonate at much higher frequency and thrust scales to the cube of frequency.  So one way to generate more thrust with a UFG would be to use a shorter stack that operates at higher frequency.  Even though you'd have half the ceramic and half the displacement and bulk acceleration, you could have 4X the thrust.  That's what we'd like to see and I believe Jim has built a pair of shorter UFG stacks perhaps for this sort of investigation.  Realize however that in most of these tests, it is the power equipment that is the real bear--impedance matching the power system--and these systems are all frequency locked.  Jim doesn't have a $30K broadband impedance matcher (although he sure could use one and they're available.)  It is most often these very practical electrical engineering matters that stand in the way of immediate progress.  That's just what happens when you're working without funding.  With even small, sub-million dollar funding the work would certainly be progressing far faster.

Folks:

I have a correction to my previous post from yesterday where I said that the MLT-2004 & Mach-2MHz test article's input voltages didn't exceed 200V-peak.  That was incorrect for the MLT-2004, which had a peak voltage of ~600V-peak with a maximum generated thrust of ~0.46 gram-force per the attached slides.

I also need to note that the bulk acceleration requirement in the MLT-2004 was met by applying a thick potting like coating of silicone RTV around the cap-ring assembly and letting it cure before fiberglass taping and winding the #18 AWG toroidal B-field coil around the cap-ring.  This buffer layer allowed the cap-ring to vibrated up and down along the Z-axis relative to the fixed B-field coil with the applied vxB Lorentz force, thus generating the required cap-ring bulk acceleration needed to express the M-E.  For the Mach-2MHz MLT, the bulk acceleration requirement was met by mounting the entire cap-ring and coil assembly on a semi-flexible Plexiglas “Dog-Bone” mounting arm that allowed it to vibrate up and down with the applied vxB Lorentz force.  Considering the frequency of these vibrations which are on the order of several MHz for either of these cases, and the small magnitude of the vxB forces generated running at these operating points, the magnitude of these cap-ring deflections were very small, being on the order of several microns, but apparently they were large enough to get the job done.

As to how to scale these G/I effects up into the Newton range and beyond, that will be a matter of following the rules set forth in the third attached slide, but also taking into account the newly appreciated need for large (tens to thousands of gees) simultaneously applied bulk accelerations that are phased locked to the rest of the system.  We also need to find or develop high-k dielectrics that don't suffer from fatigue issues that currently limits the lifetime of these devices to just tens of minutes of operation without thermal annealing.  In addition, when dealing with MLTs, if we could custom design a ceramic or single crystal dielectric material with a magnetic permeability greater than 10 that simultaneously provides a permittivity of 1,000 or greater with the low dissipation factor (DF) of Teflon (0.0002), we could generate very large MLT generated forces as shown in my last attached slide. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 04/14/2009 03:43 pm
As to how to scale these G/I effects up into the Newton range and beyond

As I see it, you do not need to scale such effects to 1 Newton. Your biggest worry is to get however small, but real non-zero effects independently verified and accepted by other physicists.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/14/2009 04:22 pm
As to how to scale these G/I effects up into the Newton range and beyond

As I see it, you do not need to scale such effects to 1 Newton. Your biggest worry is to get however small, but real non-zero effects independently verified and accepted by other physicists.

As a scientist that is the appropriate course of action, and that topic was previously addressed with my previous submittals of Dr. Woodward's ongoing rotary Mach-Effect (M-E) based mass fluctuation experimental results that strongly supports his conjecture that mass fluctuation like effects exist, and that they may be engineered into viable propulsion technology.  And yes, it would be prudent for multiple independent researchers to replicate the rotary proof of principle tests and do the same thing for the follow up MLT and UFG thrust producing devices.  However, just as in the “cold fusion” fiasco, unless the independent experimenters follow the published M-E experimental cookbook precisely, their experimental results and conclusions from same may vary greatly.

BTW, the foregoing comments assume the core M-E participants currently understand ALL the important controlling parameters that govern the functioning of these M-E based devices, which the new bulk acceleration requirement has shown us is not the case at the moment.   In other words, this G/I science building is large and our lighting candles are currently very small, but we can at least leave experimental breadcrumbs for others to follow...

Now, as an electrical engineer which is my first profession, I want to start building NOW, bigger and better M-E devices that will ultimately allow us to build the first WarpStar-1 G/I powered vehicle per my STAIF-2007 paper.  And since this NASASpaceflight.com forum is more attuned to the later engineering venue, it deserves as much time as the former topic IMO. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 04/14/2009 04:47 pm
As to how to scale these G/I effects up into the Newton range and beyond

As I see it, you do not need to scale such effects to 1 Newton. Your biggest worry is to get however small, but real non-zero effects independently verified and accepted by other physicists.

As a scientist that is the appropriate course of action, and that topic was previously addressed with my previous submittals of Dr. Woodward's ongoing rotary Mach-Effect (M-E) based mass fluctuation experimental results that strongly supports his conjecture that mass fluctuation like effects exist, and that they may be engineered into viable propulsion technology.  And yes, it would be prudent for multiple independent researchers to replicate the rotary proof of principle tests and do the same thing for the follow up MLT and UFG thrust producing devices.  However, just as in the “cold fusion” fiasco, unless the independent experimenters follow the published M-E experimental cookbook precisely, their experimental results and conclusions from same may vary greatly.
...
Now, as an electrical engineer which is my first profession, I want to start building NOW, bigger and better M-E devices that will ultimately allow us to build the first WarpStar-1 G/I powered vehicle per my STAIF-2007 paper.  And since this NASASpaceflight.com forum is more attuned to the later engineering venue, it deserves as much time as the former topic IMO.

Aren't you trying to skip a dozen steps in the ladder at once? If/when the effect is confirmed and accepted as real, there will be far more funding to continue the research, to understand the effect better, to test it in space, to build ships...

But now, people are not even convinced there is _any_ substance to these claims.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/14/2009 06:43 pm
I don't think it's fair to say Paul wants to skip steps.  He's just admitting he wants to build spaceships.  :-)  But just as he's said, the thing is to get others interested in independent replications.  To date, those who have done replications like ORNL did not follow the proper construction nor consult properly with Jim Woodward.  If they had, we would have had very different results.  Those researchers also did not understand the theory so it is little surprise they did not accommodate bulk acceleration in their design.  Conversely, Paul did consult with Jim and his thruster appears to have worked just fine.

The interesting thing to me about the upcoming UFG study is that hopefully we'll see one on the ARC Lite balance, in vacuum.  That could easily provide evidence compelling enough to land a grant and see others do replication work.  Most labs will not just pick up an unpaid project.  If you want to see careful replications done, generally you have to have money to do them.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/14/2009 07:14 pm
Aren't you trying to skip a dozen steps in the ladder at once? If/when the effect is confirmed and accepted as real, there will be far more funding to continue the research, to understand the effect better, to test it in space, to build ships...

But now, people are not even convinced there is _any_ substance to these claims.
[/quote]


GoSpaceX:

“Aren't you trying to skip a dozen steps in the ladder at once?”

What, you don’t like a carrot to chase?  After all that is the reason that I wrote my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper to begin with, i.e., to show the aerospace design community that there may be a much better way to skin the space fairing cat than just using rockets.  However, it appears that most of the aerospace community wants a sure thing before they are willing to expend ANY effort of their own needed to understand the issues at hand and to further the cause with their own efforts.

“But now, people are not even convinced there is _any_ substance to these claims.”

I give you independent derived data, but you just want more.  So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL?  Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009.  So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?  Do the interested parties have to mature the technology on their own to the point of being able to levitating the test article in front of all of you before you are willing to even consider its use let alone how its done?   It appears that is exactly what you are asking for.  It reminds me of the fable about the little red hen and the loaf of bread she baked after much travail…
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/14/2009 11:17 pm


GoSpaceX:

“Aren't you trying to skip a dozen steps in the ladder at once?”

What, you don’t like a carrot to chase?  After all that is the reason that I wrote my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper to begin with, i.e., to show the aerospace design community that there may be a much better way to skin the space fairing cat than just using rockets.  However, it appears that most of the aerospace community wants a sure thing before they are willing to expend ANY effort of their own needed to understand the issues at hand and to further the cause with their own efforts.

“But now, people are not even convinced there is _any_ substance to these claims.”

I give you independent derived data, but you just want more.  So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL?  Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009.  So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?  Do the interested parties have to mature the technology on their own to the point of being able to levitating the test article in front of all of you before you are willing to even consider its use let alone how its done?   It appears that is exactly what you are asking for.  It reminds me of the fable about the little red hen and the loaf of bread she baked after much travail…


This forum isn't the place for publishing a paper or going through peer review. Write up a paper on the experiments, submit it to the AIAA for publication. Show both Jim and Paul's independent experiments agreed with each other, and how ORNL screwed up that prevented them from replicating.

Once thats done, write up some grant requests to fund more research, submit to the DoE, NASA, USAF, DARPA. Make sure the grant requests show info about chinese, russian, indian, or european efforts in this area, particularly with the USAF and DARPA grant requests.

Beyond that, try Bigelow for funding. His focus on ET and UFOs as the basis for his aerospace project means he's going to want some truly useful spacecraft propulsion, and he's got enough money that he doesn't have to care what people think about his motives. If you want to build spaceships, know your technology works, and dont care about near term approbium of the science community (once you prove it publicly the herd will all come around), thats the best way to go.

Internet forums and email lists, I have found, are not good places to try to attract support for breakthrough technologies. They are full of either kooks who have no pull and no money, or curmudgeons whose livelihoods are threatened by disruptive technologies.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/15/2009 01:33 am
"Internet forums and email lists, I have found, are not good places to try to attract support for breakthrough technologies. They are full of either kooks who have no pull and no money, or curmudgeons whose livelihoods are threatened by disruptive technologies."

I have to agree.  Paul is just sharing his frustration that he's been at this for so long and we're not seeing the people with the purses respond, despite what seems unequivocal evidence on the rotator of Mach-Effects.

But personally, I think the best course of action is not to look for funding just yet.  I think once more that Jim Woodward has got it right.  Generate enough thrust under the proper conditions, meaning with the proper controls; such that you have a "demonstrator" then I think the world will be knocking on your door.

"Once thats done, write up some grant requests to fund more research, submit to the DoE, NASA, USAF, DARPA. Make sure the grant requests show info about chinese, russian, indian, or european efforts in this area, particularly with the USAF and DARPA grant requests."

I want to agree but here's the trouble: Jim is really doing pure research.  Paul is an engineer who wants to build spaceships! but Jim is a physicist who wants to learn about how to handle Mach-Effects. 

When one looks back over the work this last decade; there have been many discoveries and in particular, Jim is always altering his research in light of lessons learned.  If one has a grant, one is locked into a specific course of action.  You commit to a specific program and like it or not, even when you learn better, you are obliged to continue on toward the goals of the grant.  So to be plain about this, Jim is better off without a grant until he's come to a point where he is really ready to be doing R&D as opposed to pure research.

We already know many of the steps necessary to build better thrusters.  We know there are better materials we can use, higher frequencies, better COTS power equipment, different geometries, larger test articles. These are all R&D issues that have to do with prototyping and when we get to that point, we have lots of information about where to head.  First however, we need a demonstrator.

BTW, anyone here who does regular technology searches, you'll want to avoid the latest garbage from Pravda about a propellantless thruster running on a satellite.  Its a hook intended to plant a Trojan in your computer so beware what pages you open in that regard.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/15/2009 01:37 am
Virgin too, perhaps. They might at least provide a free zero-gee test of the equipment. But at this stage I guess Star-Drive and co. need to iron out the wrinkles and have a rigorous testing methodology. One of the things that let the air out of cold fusion's tires was the fact that they seem to need neutron background radiation to work, shielding them made the experiments dud out. So every possible testing variable has to be formalised, I guess. Who knows if there is some environmental variable being overlooked here.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Jim on 04/15/2009 01:41 am
Internet forums and email lists, I have found, are not good places to try to attract support for breakthrough technologies. They are full of either kooks who have no pull and no money,

The words are in the wrong order.  It should be:

Internet forums and email lists are places that attract kooks, who have no pull and no money, trying to get support for supposed breakthrough technologies.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/15/2009 01:47 am
"Internet forums and email lists, I have found, are not good places to try to attract support for breakthrough technologies. They are full of either kooks who have no pull and no money, or curmudgeons whose livelihoods are threatened by disruptive technologies."

I have to agree.  Paul is just sharing his frustration that he's been at this for so long and we're not seeing the people with the purses respond, despite what seems unequivocal evidence on the rotator of Mach-Effects.

But personally, I think the best course of action is not to look for funding just yet.  I think once more that Jim Woodward has got it right.  Generate enough thrust under the proper conditions, meaning with the proper controls; such that you have a "demonstrator" then I think the world will be knocking on your door.

BTW, anyone here who does regular technology searches, you'll want to avoid the latest garbage from Pravda about a propellantless thruster running on a satellite.  Its a hook intended to plant a Trojan in your computer so beware what pages you open in that regard.

There are people who will listen. You need to have someone on the board of directors on your side, a champion really. The CEO is best.

As for grassroots internet stuff, this technology requires a great deal of skill to get any detectable results. Getting other people in the electrical engineering field interested is key. I don't have the chops to wire something like this up but I do know someone who does.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 04/15/2009 02:02 am
Internet forums and email lists, I have found, are not good places to try to attract support for breakthrough technologies. They are full of either kooks who have no pull and no money,

The words are in the wrong order.  It should be:

Internet forums and email lists are places that attract kooks, who have no pull and no money, trying to get support for supposed breakthrough technologies.

And if it is an actual breakthrough technology? Then kick it as hard as possible and see if it'll break.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/15/2009 02:15 am
Heh!  Look, let me just remind, there have been plenty of folks who have offered to provide finacial support for Woodward's work.  I originally connected with the group because I was contracted to look for technologies worthy of investment.  Jim routinely turns down offers for financial support.  That does make him stand out in the crowd and I think, worth watching if you have the patience.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/15/2009 02:57 am
Heh!  Look, let me just remind, there have been plenty of folks who have offered to provide finacial support for Woodward's work.  I originally connected with the group because I was contracted to look for technologies worthy of investment.  Jim routinely turns down offers for financial support.  That does make him stand out in the crowd and I think, worth watching if you have the patience.

Thanks for stating that.

Oh btw I just found and listend to Prof Woodward's recent appearance on The Space Show podcast:

http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1114
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/15/2009 03:09 am
Virgin too, perhaps. They might at least provide a free zero-gee test of the equipment. But at this stage I guess Star-Drive and co. need to iron out the wrinkles and have a rigorous testing methodology. One of the things that let the air out of cold fusion's tires was the fact that they seem to need neutron background radiation to work, shielding them made the experiments dud out. So every possible testing variable has to be formalised, I guess. Who knows if there is some environmental variable being overlooked here.

Back when every university and their uncle was trying to replicate the original  CF experiments, one thing I noticed was that virtually nobody was trying to replicate the experiment EXACTLY. Each was trying different methods and materials in hopes of finding an alternative method they could patent themselves. I was in Seattle at the time and I noticed that the UW team was using iron on one of their electrodes, didnt see any neutrons, so they pronounced Pons and Fleischman frauds.

Theres been a lot more experiments since then and some have seen something, others have not and there remains a lot of contention and no unit that produces net power. CF hasn't even reached the point that the Farnsworth Fusor was at 40 years ago.

The Mach Effect, however, seems rather replicable IF it is done properly and relatively inexpensive compared even to the budget the Polywell folks have operated on.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Patchouli on 04/15/2009 03:25 am
It would be interesting if the device actually works but it also appears to be a relativity low thrust device like an ion rocket.
Even if it does work you'll still need a conventional rocket or RLV to get a vehicle equipped with it into orbit.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/15/2009 03:58 am

It would be interesting if the device actually works but it also appears to be a relativity low thrust device like an ion rocket.
Even if it does work you'll still need a conventional rocket or RLV to get a vehicle equipped with it into orbit.

Patchouli:

You didn't read or at least understand my scaling slide that I appended earlier.  Let me summarize it here again for you.  There are no currently known theoretical limits on the thrust generation capability of a gravinertial (G/I) field drive.  The only limits on the maximum thrust production for a given device are related to the design implementation details of the G/I thruster in question, i.e., how much power it can handle before it burns out and/or flys apart, just like you can build small rockets or large rockets.  G/I based thrusters with million pound thrusts or larger are conceivable and probably buildable once the G/I sciences are fully understood.  When creating a new science and technology, we take baby steps before we walk, and we have to walk before we run, but IMO we have at least taken the first few steps in this new journey.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/15/2009 04:05 am
"It would be interesting if the device actually works but it also appears to be a relativity low thrust device like an ion rocket.  Even if it does work you'll still need a conventional rocket or RLV to get a vehicle equipped with it into orbit."

Yes and no.

Woodward's theory distinguishes between two different terms: the "impulse term" derived from fluctuating mass as it oscillates back and forth when its mass is fluctuated below 100%, and the "wormhole term" that comes into play only when one fluctuates the mass beyond 100%.  In all of Woodward's experiments, he has avoided "wormhole territory" where dm>m obtains so he is seeing the expected smaller thrusts.  In Paul March's experiments, he has violated the wormhole boundary meaning, he was running at higher frequency and seeming to obtain a mass fluctuation > 100%.  That means Paul has a contribution from the wormhole term that Jim is not yet looking for--the effects of negative mass and the contribution of negative inertia.

Just to recap, Jim has been using very careful controls: running in vacuum, running on the ARC Lite, using Mu metal etc. to show he is not getting E or M coupling, ion wind or thermal artifacts.  Paul ran his 2002 test items way past the wormhole boundary--way past dm=m so one should expect much larger thrusts.  But again, Paul was not set up with sufficient vacuum to make strong claims about what he saw.

So yes--if one never violates the wormhole boundary, then the thrusts and thrust efficiency will be relatively small--though still useful for things like satellite station keeping sans propellant.  If on the other hand we one day we find that operation in wormhole territory works, then we can have these very high thrust efficiency designs like the 1 N/W thrusters Paul presumed in the WarpStar 1 design.

So truly, "yes and no."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/15/2009 02:54 pm
"It would be interesting if the device actually works but it also appears to be a relativity low thrust device like an ion rocket.  Even if it does work you'll still need a conventional rocket or RLV to get a vehicle equipped with it into orbit."

Yes and no.

Woodward's theory distinguishes between two different terms: the "impulse term" derived from fluctuating mass as it oscillates back and forth when its mass is fluctuated below 100%, and the "wormhole term" that comes into play only when one fluctuates the mass beyond 100%.  In all of Woodward's experiments, he has avoided "wormhole territory" where dm>m obtains so he is seeing the expected smaller thrusts.  In Paul March's experiments, he has violated the wormhole boundary meaning, he was running at higher frequency and seeming to obtain a mass fluctuation > 100%.  That means Paul has a contribution from the wormhole term that Jim is not yet looking for--the effects of negative mass and the contribution of negative inertia.

Just to recap, Jim has been using very careful controls: running in vacuum, running on the ARC Lite, using Mu metal etc. to show he is not getting E or M coupling, ion wind or thermal artifacts.  Paul ran his 2002 test items way past the wormhole boundary--way past dm=m so one should expect much larger thrusts.  But again, Paul was not set up with sufficient vacuum to make strong claims about what he saw.

So yes--if one never violates the wormhole boundary, then the thrusts and thrust efficiency will be relatively small--though still useful for things like satellite station keeping sans propellant.  If on the other hand we one day we find that operation in wormhole territory works, then we can have these very high thrust efficiency designs like the 1 N/W thrusters Paul presumed in the WarpStar 1 design.

So truly, "yes and no."

G/I Thruster:

Even if we restrict ourselves to delta mass ratios (dm/m) of less than one, large thrusts values can still be obtained.  You just have to use more dielectric mass and stronger crossed B-fields to get there.  In other words, not going into Mach-Effect (M-E) wormhole-term territory simply means that the thrust to weight ratios for the G/I thrusters will be lower than if we can use the dm/m>1.0 operating mode.  And since I've already demonstrated that this can be accomplished anyway, albeit not in a vacuum, then we can be pretty sure that the dm/m>1.0 operational mode will be available to us engineers in the end analysis.  And that's a good thing to, for we really need the M-E wormhole-term to take the next step past the impulse drive plateau.  Hint, think about the Alcubierre drive…
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/15/2009 07:55 pm
"The Mach Effect, however, seems rather replicable IF it is done properly and relatively inexpensive compared even to the budget the Polywell folks have operated on."

The rotator experiment that shows M-E rather than thrust is very inexpensive to do.  Any normal lab that would consider this sort of work probably has most of what they need, like scopes, readily available.  The power system takes some time to build but there is no need for vacuum, etc. so it's a cheap experiment.

Thrusters are a very different story.  For them you need a thrust balance and hard vacuum in addition to the power system.  Still, lab's like George Hathaway's and EarthTech could pretty easily do a replication.  But again, labs like that don't do replications unless they are paid.  That is after all how they earn a living.

In my experience, it is completely true that replicators seldom follow instruction and almost NEVER replicate an experiment exactly.  It's because of this that Jim Woodward is willing to build a rotator for anyone who has the skills and desire to use it--because he knows then he can expect the same results.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/17/2009 04:53 pm
In building one of these things, how do you know that they have given you enough information to build a working model?  Naturally, they're trying to patent a device, so I'm missing something here.  Are you supposed to figure out the missing pieces to the equations or mechanism yourself?

Secondly, what is the power source of this drive?  A small nuclear plant?  Where's the energy coming from?  It's one thing to build a device which can levitate itself off the lab bench while attached to a thick cable, and another to build a guidable, non-attached unit.

And am I correct in understanding that the device has not yet actually levitated any material, such as a thin sheet of gold, or something?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/17/2009 06:15 pm
Anyone interested in doing this work is invited to do so.  The rotator is not patented since it is a proof of concept demonstrator with no practical value other than to demonstrate the science is correct.  The thrusters all have patents either granted or pending so they are protected.

I know that people get enough info to build these devices because I have built them myself.  I'm not an engineer or physicist so it would be worthless for me to try to do these experiments on my own.  For thrusters you need a real lab with hard vacuum, etc. (although I do have a vacuum oven but that's another story.)  However, I can save Jim time and effort by building the thrusters for him which I have done.  I built about a dozen MLT's over a year ago and Jim ran them.  Jim is doing his own builds on the UFG at present because these are more difficult to assemble than the MLT's were and I'm not set up to do that kind of assembly, despite 20+ years shop experience.

None of the thrusters levitate.  We often joke about how the people with the purses will need to have a test item floated into their offices before they listen.  When running in the 40 kHz range Jim uses a 2kW  Carvin audio amp that has a flat response to 70 kHz.  He generally puts a couple hundred watts on a test item.  I own a cheap NADY amp that's capable of putting out 1kW and cost me $75 so these systems are very cheap.  It's the impedance matching that is expensive and difficult.  However, these power systems are not difficult to miniaturize.  The higher the frequency one runs at, the smaller a switching inverter can be used and A123 makes batteries the size of a wine cork capable of putting out over 400 watts for a short period of time.  So the power is there to go self contained and this has been done in the past with a power system that was half the size of a Coke can.  Before we turn our attention to this sort of thing in earnest, we have to verify the science.  Then we can start talking miniaturizing power systems, prototyping, development, etc. That is all TRL 7+ work.

I'm not sure if that answers your question but let me be very plain: these thrusters do not levitate other objects.  They produce thrust so the issue of gold leaf is a non issue.  This is not "anti-gravity" research.  This is gravinertial research for generating propellantless thrust.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 04/17/2009 08:57 pm
So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL?  Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009.  So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?

I am not a sceptic, I would be *happy* if someone will prove that 3rd law of Newton can be worked around.

It can be the case that the idea, being rather radical, does require verification by more than one team. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, in this case, reproduction of the effect by multiple teams.

Do not assume that "they" (meaning scientific community) have ill intentions. No amount of complaining that "they" don't take it seriously would help. Ony more independent verifications will.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danny Dot on 04/17/2009 09:24 pm
"Lifters" use air as reaction mass, and need energy for the ionization and acceleration of the air. I wouldn't class it as propellantless since you need both an energy source and reaction mass. It's more like a propeller aircraft.

Tethers can use electrodynamics in low Earth orbit to respin after tossing a payload, and can produce the power for that from solar cells so it could be propellantless propulsion I guess that could perhaps work indefinitely since the momentum exchange is with the mass of Earth.

Then there are the solar sails, electrodynamic and electrostatic sails, all propellantless propulsion if thought of as that way that use the sun's light or the solar wind (which is an ion stream).

With a tether, you can use electric power to raise the orbit, or if you lower the orbit, you can generate electrical power.

It is very viable to use a tether on a station to maintain orbit without propellant.  You would need to up the size of the solar arrays to generate the energy required.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/17/2009 09:24 pm
So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL?  Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009.  So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?

I am not a sceptic, I would be *happy* if someone will prove that 3rd law of Newton can be worked around.

It can be the case that the idea, being rather radical, does require verification by more than one team. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, in this case, reproduction of the effect by multiple teams.

Do not assume that "they" (meaning scientific community) have ill intentions. No amount of complaining that "they" don't take it seriously would help. Ony more independent verifications will.

Firstly, please stop asserting that M-E gets 'around' Newtons third law any more than a game of tug-of-war does. The M-E reacts against the rest of the universe, period. While I understand thats a bit big of a concept for some folks, honestly though, it shouldn't be for anybody who has moved beyond the idea that anything outside our solar system is just little light bulbs on a big sphere.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danny Dot on 04/17/2009 09:36 pm
Quote
hmh33 - 13/5/2008  6:30 AM

Quote
Peacekeeper - 12/5/2008  1:30 AM
Then what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive :)  Can it replace today's rockets?

No, because it is fake science.

EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.

I am NOT impressed by this site.  It states that just like a laser ring gyro is a closed system and can measure rotation rate, this drive is a closed system that can produce force.  Newton and all have NO problem with a closed system measuring rotation rate.  No need to introduce Special Theory effects to explain this.  Explaining away the closed system problem by using the laser ring gyro as an analogy tells me these people are clueless.

However I do hope I am wrong and they produce a really nice rocket engine someday.  I for one will not be investing my money in this technology.

Danny Deger

P.S.  Maybe there is some change of momentum of the photons that balances the change of momentum of the rocket.  This would make the device not violate the law of the conservation of momentum.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/17/2009 09:43 pm
So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL?  Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009.  So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?

I am not a sceptic, I would be *happy* if someone will prove that 3rd law of Newton can be worked around.

It can be the case that the idea, being rather radical, does require verification by more than one team. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, in this case, reproduction of the effect by multiple teams.

Do not assume that "they" (meaning scientific community) have ill intentions. No amount of complaining that "they" don't take it seriously would help. Ony more independent verifications will.

We're in complete accord which is why I have mentioned that this work is open for anyone to participate in.  We do need to see independent verifications.  However, we also need to recognize the difference between proving the science (which requires replications and participation of the larger science community) and proving the technology (which requires only adherence to things described in the TRL level descriptions.)  It's quite common to have the second without the first and it's a fair bet that most classified technology is this way.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/17/2009 09:50 pm
Quote
hmh33 - 13/5/2008  6:30 AM

Quote
Peacekeeper - 12/5/2008  1:30 AM
Then what about microwave saucer shaped craft? The EmDrive :)  Can it replace today's rockets?

No, because it is fake science.

EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.

I am NOT impressed by this site.  It states that just like a laser ring gyro is a closed system and can measure rotation rate, this drive is a closed system that can produce force.  Newton and all have NO problem with a closed system measuring rotation rate.  No need to introduce Special Theory effects to explain this.  Explaining away the closed system problem by using the laser ring gyro as an analogy tells me these people are incorrect.

However I do hope I am wrong and they produce a really nice rocket engine someday.  I for one will not be investing my money in this technology.

Danny Deger

P.S.  Maybe there is some change of momentum of the photons that balances the change of momentum of the rocket.  This would make the device not violate the law of the conservation of momentum.

I have never met anyone who believes this scheme as explained doesn't violate conservation.  However, it's also true that Sonny White claims his ZPF theory explains how such a thing could generate thrust.  So it's possible, if Dr. White's physics is sound (which I can't say--I'm not a ZPFer), that Shawyer literally stumbled upon a thruster design that works and he really doesn't understand why it works!

But I'm not saying it works.  If it did would he have lost his Brit gov funding?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/18/2009 01:44 pm
"Anyone interested in doing this work is invited to do so."  Certainly, but that's also like saying, "anyone who wants to build a hydrogen fueled automobile is free to do so."  Easy to say and fairly hard to do.

Anyhow, about the gold leaf. you can levitate a ping pong ball in the air from the other end of a vacuum cleaner.  In order to propel something, there has to be a directional force somewhere.  If we're using the universe to push against that gold leaf, then so be it.

Point is, if this is going to be a rocket, something needs to be pushed.  Yeah, levitating itself around the lab would be a very impressive display, sure to get investor dollars.  But I think an easier display is to demonstrate lifting something against the pull of Earth's gravity.

Am I correct that the device doesn't have enough thrust to escape Earth's gravity?  But it has some thrust.  Maybe not levitate a gold leaf, but push against a balance beam, then.  Something that the guy with money can see.

I also don't understand why he doesn't seek funding.  Either the science hasn't yet been proved, or he's trying to get the big bucks associated with the patent.  I have argued for altruism on this site, and have been ridiculed.  I would have a hard time believing that his is an altruistic exercise.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 04/18/2009 02:36 pm
Quote
Quote
EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.

I am NOT impressed by this site.  It states that just like a laser ring gyro is a closed system and can measure rotation rate, this drive is a closed system that can produce force.  Newton and all have NO problem with a closed system measuring rotation rate.  No need to introduce Special Theory effects to explain this.  Explaining away the closed system problem by using the laser ring gyro as an analogy tells me these people are incorrect.

However I do hope I am wrong and they produce a really nice rocket engine someday.  I for one will not be investing my money in this technology.

Danny Deger

P.S.  Maybe there is some change of momentum of the photons that balances the change of momentum of the rocket.  This would make the device not violate the law of the conservation of momentum.

I took me a while to understand how it works. There is a basic property of a waveguide that describes how the group velocity of a wave changes as the size of the waveguide changes. For the em-drive it is this that creates the force imbalance on the end walls of the cavity. In terms of momentum, if there are two equal masses and the total momentum p=p1-p2 then p is non zero when the velocities of the particle colliding at each end of the waveguide differ. The slope of the walls of the cavity ensure the collisions with the walls along the length result in a nonlinear force ie: the differing group velocities along the length of the sloping cavity ensure the particles don't just bounce around inside the cavity canceling each others forces totally out. One uses the law of relativistic velocity addition to see that there is forward motion when the thruster is viewed by an outside observer (thus an open system).
To illustrate:
If one fires two opposing canons within a closed box the impact of the canonballs against the walls will cancel out to result in zero motion. If either the velocity or the mass of one of the balls changes en-route to the wall then the impacts will not cancel out and there will be motion. The trick then is to deal with the lost mass or velocity. It has to have gone somewhere.
From the point of view of momentum; The em-drive looks at the change in velocity whereas the woodward drive looks at the change in mass. The both deal with the imbalance in different ways. EM-drive uses the properties of waveguides and relativity whereas woodward's drive uses machian mass fluctuations and a rectifier.
When one accounts for the energy absorbed into the system to create the motion then one retains conversation of energy. Same for momentum.

So I think I understand. Took me a while but I think I'm there. And it is basic physics! It USES newton laws. It just needed a different perspective.



Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/18/2009 04:42 pm
"There is a basic property of a waveguide that describes how the group velocity of a wave changes as the size of the waveguide changes."

Very interesting.  Could you explain a little more for us how this change in group velocity can explain a change in momentum without violating conservation?  I think this is the sticky point people seem to disagree with Shawyer on.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/18/2009 05:23 pm
"Anyone interested in doing this work is invited to do so."  Certainly, but that's also like saying, "anyone who wants to build a hydrogen fueled automobile is free to do so."  Easy to say and fairly hard to do.

Anyhow, about the gold leaf. you can levitate a ping pong ball in the air from the other end of a vacuum cleaner.  In order to propel something, there has to be a directional force somewhere.  If we're using the universe to push against that gold leaf, then so be it.

Point is, if this is going to be a rocket, something needs to be pushed.  Yeah, levitating itself around the lab would be a very impressive display, sure to get investor dollars.  But I think an easier display is to demonstrate lifting something against the pull of Earth's gravity.

Am I correct that the device doesn't have enough thrust to escape Earth's gravity?  But it has some thrust.  Maybe not levitate a gold leaf, but push against a balance beam, then.  Something that the guy with money can see.

I also don't understand why he doesn't seek funding.  Either the science hasn't yet been proved, or he's trying to get the big bucks associated with the patent.  I have argued for altruism on this site, and have been ridiculed.  I would have a hard time believing that his is an altruistic exercise.

The MLT thrusters produce thrust on the order of a few uN, the older UFG design a few hundred uN.  Paul March's MLT developed much more thrust because it was run in wormhole territory but as I've mentioned, Paul was unable to provide the proper protocols and controls for us to make strong claims about what he found.  In all these instances, the thrusters produce less force than their own weight so they will not levitate.  They are measured on the ARC Lite thrust balance and if what you want is to see something move on the balance, expect that in the next few weeks when Jim resumes his thruster studies.

And yes, it is certainly Jim's integrity that moves him to refrain from looking for cash like most others in this business.  Perhaps this is the natural consequence that he's in his late 70's with a couple different types of terminal cancer so he has a great sense of his own mortality.  In any case, he knows he can't take it with him so money is not his goal.  Proving the science and leaving a lasting legacy are more to his tastes, IMHO.

For the rest of us who want to build spaceships, Jim's patience in this area can cause us some real stress.  :-)

Again, anyone who wants to be involved in this research can make their own place.  All the relevant physics and engineering is posted.  There is a team of highly skilled engineers surrounding Jim who are happy to help others.  What's required are: the skills necessary to succeed (I'm a philosopher, it would be silly for me to think I could run one of these experiments), a desire to learn and the free time.  Time is one of those things that is on a premium since Jim is the only one involved who is working essentially full time.  Anyone wants on the mailing list, that's the best place to start to learn about the work.  Just write me a couple sentences describing your background and skills and I'll forward your address to Jim.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/18/2009 06:35 pm
Quote
Quote

EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.

I am NOT impressed by this site.  It states that just like a laser ring gyro is a closed system and can measure rotation rate, this drive is a closed system that can produce force.  Newton and all have NO problem with a closed system measuring rotation rate.  No need to introduce Special Theory effects to explain this.  Explaining away the closed system problem by using the laser ring gyro as an analogy tells me these people are incorrect.

However I do hope I am wrong and they produce a really nice rocket engine someday.  I for one will not be investing my money in this technology.

Danny Deger

P.S.  Maybe there is some change of momentum of the photons that balances the change of momentum of the rocket.  This would make the device not violate the law of the conservation of momentum.

I took me a while to understand how it works. There is a basic property of a waveguide that describes how the group velocity of a wave changes as the size of the waveguide changes. For the em-drive it is this that creates the force imbalance on the end walls of the cavity. In terms of momentum, if there are two equal masses and the total momentum p=p1-p2 then p is non zero when the velocities of the particle colliding at each end of the waveguide differ. The slope of the walls of the cavity ensure the collisions with the walls along the length result in a nonlinear force ie: the differing group velocities along the length of the sloping cavity ensure the particles don't just bounce around inside the cavity canceling each others forces totally out. One uses the law of relativistic velocity addition to see that there is forward motion when the thruster is viewed by an outside observer (thus an open system).

To illustrate:

If one fires two opposing canons within a closed box the impact of the canonballs against the walls will cancel out to result in zero motion. If either the velocity or the mass of one of the balls changes en-route to the wall then the impacts will not cancel out and there will be motion. The trick then is to deal with the lost mass or velocity. It has to have gone somewhere.

From the point of view of momentum; The em-drive looks at the change in velocity whereas the woodward drive looks at the change in mass. The both deal with the imbalance in different ways. EM-drive uses the properties of waveguides and relativity whereas woodward's drive uses machian mass fluctuations and a rectifier.

When one accounts for the energy absorbed into the system to create the motion then one retains conversation of energy. Same for momentum.

So I think I understand. Took me a while but I think I'm there. And it is basic physics! It USES newton laws. It just needed a different perspective.


Nathan:

A major problem with Shawyer’s waveguide explanation is that his theoretical proof does not provide an explanation for the magnitude of the reaction forces reported.  Photon rockets of any stripe with only several hundred watts of input power can't generate thrusts measured in milli-Newtons.  Instead they can only produce pico to nano-Newtons of thrust from their local power supplies, unless they are also inadvertently tapping into a higher dimensional energy manifold as do Woodward's devices with the cosmologically derived gravinertial field. 

However, Shawyer first has to replicate his posted video experiment in a hard vacuum (<1x10-6 Torr) and get the same results, thus precluding possible ion wind or cooling fan generated thrusts before we worry too much about his proposed theoretical approach.  If he does get the same reported thrust in a vacuum though, then my bet is still on Sonny White's QVF explanation being more accurate than Shawyer’s.

BTW, as noted by GI-Thruster, I need to find the time and resources to replicate my Mach-2MHz experiment and/or exercise my new MLT-2009 test article in a hard vacuum, before we can take its results to be anything more than strongly suggestive that M-E based MLTs work as advertised.  Alas, that next step for me has proven problematic so far...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/18/2009 06:54 pm
"Anyone interested in doing this work is invited to do so."  Certainly, but that's also like saying, "anyone who wants to build a hydrogen fueled automobile is free to do so."  Easy to say and fairly hard to do.

Anyhow, about the gold leaf. you can levitate a ping pong ball in the air from the other end of a vacuum cleaner.  In order to propel something, there has to be a directional force somewhere.  If we're using the universe to push against that gold leaf, then so be it.

Point is, if this is going to be a rocket, something needs to be pushed.  Yeah, levitating itself around the lab would be a very impressive display, sure to get investor dollars.  But I think an easier display is to demonstrate lifting something against the pull of Earth's gravity.

Am I correct that the device doesn't have enough thrust to escape Earth's gravity?  But it has some thrust.  Maybe not levitate a gold leaf, but push against a balance beam, then.  Something that the guy with money can see.

I also don't understand why he doesn't seek funding.  Either the science hasn't yet been proved, or he's trying to get the big bucks associated with the patent.  I have argued for altruism on this site, and have been ridiculed.  I would have a hard time believing that his is an altruistic exercise.

Altruism with feeding the poor is nice and good. Altruism with technology that requires significant capital investments to fully exploit is a disservice to everyone. Without an ability to gain a maximum return on the investment, venture capitalists are dissuaded from investing in a new technology.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/18/2009 08:52 pm
The trouble with all funding is that one is essentially locked into pursuing whatever research one commits to in order to get the funding.  One thing I've repeatedly seen over these last 3+ years is that discovery has dictated a change in direction of research on many occasions.  If Jim had taken a venture capitalist's money to pursue the MLT, he would need to be continuing that despite that he's learned the MLT does not provide adequate bulk acceleration.  Jim has learned his lessons from the MLT and returned to UFG research.  That kind of flexibility is literally "priceless".  Same is true with this last year's worth of research on the rotator.  Now we have an entire body of new evidence of M-E, of a completely different sort than what comes from a thruster.  That's a significant breakthrough.  But suppose again Jim had taken money to pursue the MLT.  Then he would not have had the freedom a year ago to change course and attack the rotator issue for an entire year.  No investor would have been happy that Jim had essentially abandoned thrust studies in order to prove out the science.  If Jim had taken money from others, he would literally not have the freedom to make these sorts of choices.

So it's not just altruism that has Jim ignoring money.  It's common sense.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 04/18/2009 11:38 pm
"There is a basic property of a waveguide that describes how the group velocity of a wave changes as the size of the waveguide changes."

Very interesting.  Could you explain a little more for us how this change in group velocity can explain a change in momentum without violating conservation?  I think this is the sticky point people seem to disagree with Shawyer on.
I tried to in my post. Essentially the momentum gained by the system equals the momentum lost by the electromagnetic wave within the cavity.
In my example - the momentum "mysteriously" lost by one canonball (due to change in velocity in the waveguide) is converted equally into the momentum gained by the system, thus conserving momentum. Thus nothing needs to be thrown out the back of the vehicle (which is everyones sticking point).

In response to stardrives comment on the magnitude of the effect - the effect is magnified by the large number of reflections each photon experiences at the end walls. Each reflection imparts momentum (like light hitting a solar sail would). One then needs to consider the overall power of the system to obtain the magnitude reported. The system itself does limit the effect though. If the velocity of the waveguide increases in the direction of the thrust then thrust falls to zero at some limiting velocity.

If one thinks about it - we really don't understand why momentum is transfered from one body to another - we can describe it mathematically and generate equations but why does it happen at all? And how does it happen? Perhaps the em-drive is a result of this actual process. (this is arm waving of course).

(I should have pointed out that this all depends on the fact that the actual equations for the beam velocities within the cavity do not depend of the velocity of the waveguide itself. Thus the open system point of view.)
The best paper they've produced is http://www.emdrive.com/IAC-08-C4-4-7.pdf
I suggest everyone read it and work thru the equations. I have a physics degree and I cannot find a problem with the equations at all. I cannot see anything being violated and I can see a net thrust resulting.
I do agree that we need more comprehensive testing to eliminate all possibilities, including larger unseen nulling effects. They have a new thruster due to be ready for testing in August this year.


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/19/2009 12:39 am
"In my example - the momentum "mysteriously" lost by one canonball (due to change in velocity in the waveguide) is converted equally into the momentum gained by the system, thus conserving momentum."

Well, as I'm not a physicist I'll leave detailed analysis alone, but I have to say, I'm anything but convinced.  You can do the math but intuition tells me this is wrong.  If you fire one cannonball right and another left, and mysteriously drop the velocity to the right, you would have to conserve by somehow finding momentum to the right.  But instead, what you get is net force to the left.  I think that's wrong.  Sounds like someone got a sign wrong somewhere. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 04/19/2009 03:40 am
"In my example - the momentum "mysteriously" lost by one canonball (due to change in velocity in the waveguide) is converted equally into the momentum gained by the system, thus conserving momentum."

Well, as I'm not a physicist I'll leave detailed analysis alone, but I have to say, I'm anything but convinced.  You can do the math but intuition tells me this is wrong.  If you fire one cannonball right and another left, and mysteriously drop the velocity to the right, you would have to conserve by somehow finding momentum to the right.  But instead, what you get is net force to the left.  I think that's wrong.  Sounds like someone got a sign wrong somewhere. . .

Yeah. That's what had me struggling all along. But that's the beauty of the waveguide. The wavelength or the photons remains the same but the group velocity differs along the axis of the tapered waveguide. (Hence our canonball changes velocity mid flight, without consequence since the velocity of the light is not dependant on the forward velocity of the waveguide. (Thus the open system)).
The actual answer is given in equation 10 of the paper , which shows where the relativistic addition of velocities makes all the difference. The graph shows the relationship clearly.


What we are looking at here is a non-linear solution to the newton force equation. The geometry of the waveguide forces the em wave to change its group velocity along the length of the tapered cavity, based on the diameter of the cavity.This generates the momentum difference in the first place due to the photon impacts at each end.

The total momentum is conserved since the motion of the cavity becomes the extra term needed for conservation.

p1=momentum imparted on plate one.
p2=momentum imarted on plate two.
p=resultant momentum.
if p1 and p2 are unequal and opposite, there will be a resultant momentum p.
p=p2-p1
or
p-p2+p1=0

Thus momentum is conserved.
That's as simple as I can make it.



Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 04/19/2009 04:21 am
I'll try to come up with a better illustration of the concept. It seems understandable to me but I've worked thru the equations. My intuition tells me it is correct because of this. But until one clicks ones intuition will never accept it.

Gimme a couple of days.

For those uncertain as to why the forces on each end of the waveguide differ - consider a tapered pipe with water flowing thru it. the water goes faster the smaller the pipe becomes. ie, the same mass moves thru at a higher speed in the smaller pipe than the larger one. This is analagous to the group velocity of light in a waveguide.
Faster moving water impacts a wall with higher momentum than slow moving water.
One should thus easily see that the forces on each end of the waveguide are different. That part of the illustration is easy enough. The rest is hard as it involves relativity and the concept of an open system.

Let me think on it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/19/2009 02:52 pm
Seems like small thrusts are possible.  What you need on a long interstellar flight.  Pico-Newtons aren't very much.  About the power supply: it's good that it's potentially simple.  I have an old tube Mac that probably would be too heavy to levitate itself, but I bet it could climb up a cable to the Moon.

Anyhow, the power supply so far is attached to a cable, and the demonstrated force experiments are more like a balance beam, I gather.

I like the idea of research for it's own sake, and it's true that investors frown upon an inventor changing his direction without their assent.  But I still don't get it.  Is this technology at the proof of concep phase?

Now to read IAC- 08 – C4.4.7.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/19/2009 04:15 pm
Seems like small thrusts are possible.  What you need on a long interstellar flight.  Pico-Newtons aren't very much.  About the power supply: it's good that it's potentially simple.  I have an old tube Mac that probably would be too heavy to levitate itself, but I bet it could climb up a cable to the Moon.

Anyhow, the power supply so far is attached to a cable, and the demonstrated force experiments are more like a balance beam, I gather.

I like the idea of research for it's own sake, and it's true that investors frown upon an inventor changing his direction without their assent.  But I still don't get it.  Is this technology at the proof of concep phase?

Now to read IAC- 08 – C4.4.7.

Woodward's thruster work is at the TRL 5-6.  There have been many sorts of "proof of concept."  The issue here is that science doesn't actually ever "prove" anything.  More what it does is disprove all the alternatives.  So point in fact, there is no one single standard of evidence that qualifies as 'scientific", etc.  What we have are many people from many backgrounds who each individually think one level of evidence is convincing and another compelling, etc.  So the goal is to compile as many sorts of evidence as possible.

The rotator evidence is very compelling to me since I understand there are no other proposed effects found in anti-phase to electrostriction that can explain Jim's findings.  So far as convincing the larger scientific community is concerned, there's no way to tell how physicists will respond.  In general they don't like each other.  :-)    It's very difficult to get physicists to respond to each other.  The only ways I know for sure to do this are either a) pay them to pay attention or b) publish in a peer review journal.  Jim did the latter over a decade ago with no complaints outstanding so really I think we are just going to have to wait for the scientific community to wake up.  One way of waking them up is to do replications as broadly as possible.

The issue of "how much thrust is enough thrust?" is a serious one.  You are tracking to think that Jim is not yet producing enough thrust to power human spaceflight.  However, UFG's producing 100's of uN are useful in their own right for things like propellantless satellite station keeping.  The fact these items have an effective Isp much higher than Ion, and use no propellant, could make even these pre-prototype thrusters a marketable item.  However, the real news is that these things all scale wonderfully, not just in how much thrust they produce, but in their thrust efficiency.  For instance, in the future we can look at exotic materials.  Thrust efficiency scales to the square of the dielectric constant (k) of the material used.  Jim is using sintered BaTiO3 caps in his upcoming UFG design with a k of around 5,000.  That's a very high k material.  Single crystal BaTiO3 has a k of closer to 10,000 but rather than cost $2/cc it costs $5,000/cc.  So you can see why we're not using single crystal caps.  But who knows what the future holds?  Perhaps we can find a way to use "hot opal" phase change dielectrics with a k over 100,000.  That would give us bang!  Thrust also scales to things like the cube of frequency and operating at higher frequencies is often easier and cheaper.  The size of switching inverters scale inversely proportional to their frequency so one route to miniaturization is simply to go to higher frequencies in the future. Then there are the parametric methods for enhancing thrust and a bunch of others.

Does that give a sense of the process going on?  It's not a sprint.  It's a marathon.

And yes, the Arc Lite balance is like a balance beam except that it is set up horizontally so that it will not confuse thrust with time-averaged changes in mass.  It's a very precise, world-class instrument built by Tom Mayhood complete with vacuum chamber that pulls E-6 Torr.   The ARC Lite is a large improvement over other thrust balances of its kind to be found in academia and at the Austrian Research Center because it has been enhanced with liquid metal power system contacts that generate no discernable resistance to rotation on the balance arm.  The ARC Lite is probably the best instrument of its kind in the world today.  I expect Jim will be publishing photos of the ARC Lite with a UFG on the arm in his weekly updates of UFG research starting in the next couple weeks.  If so I'll try to post a pic here.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/19/2009 05:45 pm
I'll try to come up with a better illustration of the concept. It seems understandable to me but I've worked thru the equations. My intuition tells me it is correct because of this. But until one clicks ones intuition will never accept it.

Gimme a couple of days.

For those uncertain as to why the forces on each end of the waveguide differ - consider a tapered pipe with water flowing thru it. the water goes faster the smaller the pipe becomes. ie, the same mass moves thru at a higher speed in the smaller pipe than the larger one. This is analagous to the group velocity of light in a waveguide.
Faster moving water impacts a wall with higher momentum than slow moving water.
One should thus easily see that the forces on each end of the waveguide are different. That part of the illustration is easy enough. The rest is hard as it involves relativity and the concept of an open system.

Let me think on it.

My quick survey of "group velocity" seems to say that this is the wrong way to consider momentum.  It seems to me to be more a bookkeeping invention.  When Shawyer's waveguide opens at one end, the group velocity will be lower, but the distribution of mass across that end of the waveguide will be higher because there's a larger surface area.  So in total, even though it is in some sense true to say the wave has lower velocity, it has the same momentum.  That is the bookkeeping I don't think Shawyer has done properly.

Note that group velocities can be zero and even negative but the photons always propagate at c:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Patchouli on 04/19/2009 05:46 pm

It would be interesting if the device actually works but it also appears to be a relativity low thrust device like an ion rocket.
Even if it does work you'll still need a conventional rocket or RLV to get a vehicle equipped with it into orbit.

Patchouli:

You didn't read or at least understand my scaling slide that I appended earlier.  Let me summarize it here again for you.  There are no currently known theoretical limits on the thrust generation capability of a gravinertial (G/I) field drive.  The only limits on the maximum thrust production for a given device are related to the design implementation details of the G/I thruster in question, i.e., how much power it can handle before it burns out and/or flys apart, just like you can build small rockets or large rockets.  G/I based thrusters with million pound thrusts or larger are conceivable and probably buildable once the G/I sciences are fully understood.  When creating a new science and technology, we take baby steps before we walk, and we have to walk before we run, but IMO we have at least taken the first few steps in this new journey.


I was thinking near term as for now we're limited to a few hundred kilowatts max with on board power supplies due to cooling needs.

Still it would be neat to put one on a microsat give a KW or so of power and see if you can rise the orbit a little.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/19/2009 05:54 pm
"Still it would be neat to put one on a microsat give a KW or so of power and see if you can rise the orbit a little."

That's a TRL 7 exercise.  If we had the money to do something like that, I think we'd be investing in better materials, have much higher thrust efficiencies and probably build a 3D platform one could drive around inside and outside ISS.  That would make for a better demonstration as one would be showing a higher level of mastery.  Also, for a short term demo, you can use batteries instead of expensive PV arrays.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/19/2009 08:00 pm
Seems like small thrusts are possible.  What you need on a long interstellar flight.  Pico-Newtons aren't very much.  About the power supply: it's good that it's potentially simple.  I have an old tube Mac that probably would be too heavy to levitate itself, but I bet it could climb up a cable to the Moon.

Anyhow, the power supply so far is attached to a cable, and the demonstrated force experiments are more like a balance beam, I gather.

I like the idea of research for it's own sake, and it's true that investors frown upon an inventor changing his direction without their assent.  But I still don't get it.  Is this technology at the proof of concep phase?

Now to read IAC- 08 – C4.4.7.

Woodward's thruster work is at the TRL 5-6.  There have been many sorts of "proof of concept."  The issue here is that science doesn't actually ever "prove" anything.  More what it does is disprove all the alternatives.  So point in fact, there is no one single standard of evidence that qualifies as 'scientific", etc.  What we have are many people from many backgrounds who each individually think one level of evidence is convincing and another compelling, etc.  So the goal is to compile as many sorts of evidence as possible.

The rotator evidence is very compelling to me since I understand there are no other proposed effects found in anti-phase to electrostriction that can explain Jim's findings.  So far as convincing the larger scientific community is concerned, there's no way to tell how physicists will respond.  In general they don't like each other.  :-) 

Read a quote today that the field of economics "advances one funeral at a time". This is IMHO the way too much science in long established fields tends to progress.

Physics especially. Looking back at the transition between the era of relativity to the era of quantum theory shows this to be particularly true. Einstein and a few Maxwellian types held back much quantum theory in the 1920s through the 40's when they died off finally.

It is amazing today that you meet people who insist that you comply with a simplistic misinterpretation of Newton when he's three centuries dead. FYI while Newton wasn't fully supplanted by relativity or quantum theory, problems with Newton were refined (for instance, Mercury's orbit, among a number of other things).

If some folks here insist that Mercury obeyed Newton precisely then they'd have to accept there was some other force changing its orbit or that astronomers were insane. Folks need to stop demanding the same of gravinertial thrusters.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/20/2009 12:10 am
What I hear you not saying is that the power supply is still an issue.  And with the reported thrust levels so low, the power supply seems to be adding more mass than the device can push against.  At least push against usefully.

I understand that tweaking satellite orbits by use of PV panels for energy supply, and only needing small bursts
for useful work is a good use of this device.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/20/2009 01:45 am
"What I hear you not saying is that the power supply is still an issue.  And with the reported thrust levels so low, the power supply seems to be adding more mass than the device can push against."

John, the question you're asking has been answered many times in this thread.  To recap, what you're asking about is what we call "thrust efficiency" which is a measure of the amount of thrust (measured in Newtons or "N") for the amount of electrical power (measured in watts or "W") supplied to the test item.  The test items run by Jim have a thrust efficiency too low to enable human spaceflight but could be used for things like satellite station keeping.

Now there's a huge difference between the thrust efficiencies found in test items in the lab, and the thrust efficiencies possible.  Star Drive just answered this question a couple days ago when he said that we know of no theoretical limit to how efficient these items can be.  So, in order to illustrate what is possible, and even probable, Star Drive (AKA Paul March) wrote his "WarpStar" paper a couple years ago and presented it at STAIF '07.  It was extremely well received and if you read above, you can find a link to the paper.

But in short, if we presume a specific thrust efficiency of 1 newton per watt (1N/W) then we can use this to extrapolate how this might enable human spaceflight.  This is the thrust efficiency figure chosen by Paul in the WarpStar 1 design and there are no reasons to believe this is an unrealistic figure.

So that you know what we're talking about, the WarpStar craft is designed to accelerate constantly between the Earth and the Moon.  It can provide constant acceleration based upon the power systems of the design and fly from the Earth to the Moon in about 5 hours, or less if you don't mind a higher acceleration.  It can unload several tons of cargo and fly back in 5 hours, only then to be refueled.  Since it doesn't need to make a hypersonic reentry, it can be refueled in just a few minutes, have its life support refreshed and be off for another round trip with almost no maintenance.  It's capable of VTOL with no downwash or exhaust and can be parked in a space the size of a medium business jet.  It can be used as a lunar sky crane for assembling large structures on the Moon.  All this is possible with the simple power systems available with hydrogen fuel cells.  A similar craft with 1N/W thrusters could be powered by a small fission reactor and have complete autonomy in our planetary system so far as propulsion needs are concerned.  It could fly to Mars at its closest approach in 2 days, or at its furthest in 5 days.  It could fly to the asteroid belt in 6 days or to Jupiter in 7 or to Saturn and a nice view of the rings in 9 days and such a craft could be designed to stay out for many months at a time, much like modern naval vessels.

What you need to understand is that thrust efficiency is the question you've now asked several times and you haven't understood the answer.  The answer is that these lab test items do not have the thrust efficiency to enable human spaceflight but they are proving the science necessary to develop those that could.

Hope that answers your question.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 04/20/2009 08:46 am
So what do you consider “substance” in regards to proving these observed M-E effects are REAL?  Supporting experimental data from two or more different sources used to be considered substantiating support, but apparently that is no longer the case in 2009.  So what will it take to prove the point to you and the rest of the skeptics in the world that the M-E or its QVF cousin is real and usable?

I am not a sceptic, I would be *happy* if someone will prove that 3rd law of Newton can be worked around.

It can be the case that the idea, being rather radical, does require verification by more than one team. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, in this case, reproduction of the effect by multiple teams.

Do not assume that "they" (meaning scientific community) have ill intentions. No amount of complaining that "they" don't take it seriously would help. Ony more independent verifications will.

Firstly, please stop asserting that M-E gets 'around' Newtons third law any more than a game of tug-of-war does. The M-E reacts against the rest of the universe, period. While I understand thats a bit big of a concept for some folks, honestly though, it shouldn't be for anybody who has moved beyond the idea that anything outside our solar system is just little light bulbs on a big sphere.

By what mechanism is it reacting against the rest of the universe?  Why do other devices not react with the rest of the universe like this?  Why is this one special?  How can it instantaneously signal the rest of the universe to react?  Saying it is so doesn't make it so. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 04/20/2009 09:30 am
Quote
Quote
EM-Drive is not fake science. They have a WORKING prototype and are moving towards a flight test in 2009. www.emdrive.com. This uses actual physics and obeys all the convervation laws.

I am NOT impressed by this site.  It states that just like a laser ring gyro is a closed system and can measure rotation rate, this drive is a closed system that can produce force.  Newton and all have NO problem with a closed system measuring rotation rate.  No need to introduce Special Theory effects to explain this.  Explaining away the closed system problem by using the laser ring gyro as an analogy tells me these people are incorrect.

However I do hope I am wrong and they produce a really nice rocket engine someday.  I for one will not be investing my money in this technology.

Danny Deger

P.S.  Maybe there is some change of momentum of the photons that balances the change of momentum of the rocket.  This would make the device not violate the law of the conservation of momentum.

I took me a while to understand how it works. There is a basic property of a waveguide that describes how the group velocity of a wave changes as the size of the waveguide changes. For the em-drive it is this that creates the force imbalance on the end walls of the cavity. In terms of momentum, if there are two equal masses and the total momentum p=p1-p2 then p is non zero when the velocities of the particle colliding at each end of the waveguide differ. The slope of the walls of the cavity ensure the collisions with the walls along the length result in a nonlinear force ie: the differing group velocities along the length of the sloping cavity ensure the particles don't just bounce around inside the cavity canceling each others forces totally out. One uses the law of relativistic velocity addition to see that there is forward motion when the thruster is viewed by an outside observer (thus an open system).
To illustrate:
If one fires two opposing canons within a closed box the impact of the canonballs against the walls will cancel out to result in zero motion. If either the velocity or the mass of one of the balls changes en-route to the wall then the impacts will not cancel out and there will be motion. The trick then is to deal with the lost mass or velocity. It has to have gone somewhere.
From the point of view of momentum; The em-drive looks at the change in velocity whereas the woodward drive looks at the change in mass. The both deal with the imbalance in different ways. EM-drive uses the properties of waveguides and relativity whereas woodward's drive uses machian mass fluctuations and a rectifier.
When one accounts for the energy absorbed into the system to create the motion then one retains conversation of energy. Same for momentum.

So I think I understand. Took me a while but I think I'm there. And it is basic physics! It USES newton laws. It just needed a different perspective.





I don't have time right now to go through the whole "theory paper" at emdrive.com line-by-line to show where the analysis is flawed, but there are *numerous* problems with the physics.  Hopefully I will get around to this at some point in the reasonably near future.  From a first read through of the text, though, my reaction was to quote Pauli: "That's not right, it's not even wrong."

For starters, the very first section claims that the group velocity of a wave in a waveguide changes with diameter of the waveguide.  OK, fine.  Then it starts to go wrong...  The next statement claims that the difference in group velocity from one end to the other causes a force imbalance, resulting in a net thrust.  To support this, the author brings up the completely unrelated Lorentz force equation (which describes the force on a charged particle in an electromagnetic field).  In that equation, the velocity referred to is the velocity of the charged particle, yet the author suggests that we should substitute the group velocity of a wave instead to see that the force changes.  He claims that because this equation responds to a change in velocity in one way, another unrelated system should as well.

The next section asserts that the force of radiation on a reflective flat plate is just 2nhfA, which is the correct classical result based on momentum transfer of the incident photons in the light.  Then he states, completely without support, that the force imparted by a wave with group velocity vg is 2nhfA*(vg/c).  Nowhere in the text is it explained why we should be using the group velocity of the wave to calculate force.

In reality, it is the momentum of the photons that we care about, not the group velocity.  And guess what, photons always travel at c.  Always.  Regardless of what the group velocity of the wave is (which can in fact be different than c).  Now they may change energy by interacting with an object, and thus momentum and force, but that is never mentioned in the text (which is actually a major problem).

There are other, worse, problems with the text (relativistic frames of reference problems, relativistic simultaneity and timeline problems, unaccounted for changes in photon energy, etc.), but those will have to wait until I have more time to really dig in. 

Please also keep in mind that this is not a peer-reviewed paper.  It is just the unverified writing of one person.  It should give anyone reading it pause when they realize he includes only three references, and one of them is a college physics textbook...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Spacenick on 04/20/2009 11:06 am
If and only if there is any truth to this science, then this type of drive would be more then revolutionary even if it had only a thrust of half a newton and even then it would be more then enough for use in human space flight in general. The thing people have to understand is that to go the moon for the most part of the trip we don't need a levitatiing device such a device would be nice but it is absolutely not needed.
If we could construct a tug that could carry 25 mt to lunar orbit from LEO within a timeframe of say 1 year, we would already have a huge advantage for manned spaceflight because we could build a salyut size lunar orbiting station for less money then sending a space shuttle to the ISS.
If that tug would be reusable and we could build say 25 of them, we could easyly be talking about a lunar base, and we could probably do it without any heavy lift launches only with current rockets.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/20/2009 01:43 pm
Thanks for the explanation. Thrust efficiency is the term I was looking for.

A pico-newton is one trillionth of a newton.  It may be that the technology will scale as you hypothesise, but that's still a long way to go.

Is that level of thrust even enough to tweak a satellite's orbit?  And the current state is, roughly, a Carvin amp, at about 20 pounds, some kind of power supply, and some extra circuitry.  On the back of the ol' envelope, you'd roughly need a satellite of about 50-100 pounds to just demonstrate this in the real world. I'm sure something could be better modeled in software, but right now, the thrust efficiency is too low.

Further, the results haven't been replicated by a different lab, for reasons which sound vague.

I've read the article once, and now have blazotron's remarks to assist in my understanding.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/20/2009 03:01 pm
There's some other things worthy of note wrt emdrive.

About funding.  The Chinese have expressed interest in this technology, and seem willing to invest:

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1898

Also:

http://peakoil.com/energy-technology/chinese-say-they-re-building-impossible-space-drive-t45867.html

So there is some interest out there regarding this idea.  However, a Google search of the term:

CULLEN A.L. ‘Absolute Power Measurements at Microwave Frequencies’IEE Proceedings Vol 99 Part IV 1952 P.100

yields 45 English pages, which are related to either the two sites above or to variants on Roger Shawyer or SPR.  It's hard to find other points of view on this subject than Shawyer's.

Perhaps someone has a better online source to review this paper.  I think it is important to pursue becasue this reference is cited as the explanation for the derived equation "2nhfA*(vg/c)" which blazotron finds fault with in his analysis above.  With only a basic understanding of the math involved, it seems clear to me that group velocity does not have a place in a force calculation.

Perhaps this relationship can be better explained.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/20/2009 03:17 pm
"By what mechanism is it reacting against the rest of the universe?  Why do other devices not react with the rest of the universe like this?  Why is this one special?  How can it instantaneously signal the rest of the universe to react?  Saying it is so doesn't make it so."

You sound like a physicist so let me appeal to you as if you are one.

The question you raise is the subject of all of Jim Woodward's theoretical writings found over the years in places like Foundations of Physics.  If you're a physicist with a real interest, you'll want to read the papers rather than take the word of a mindless philosopher like myself.  You can find some of the papers here:

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

However, to answer your question in short: the mechanism you are asking about is the ability to create a Mach Effect (M-E) otherwise known as a "mass fluctuation."  Jim's true genius apart from being a wonderfully gifted experimenter, is his bringing Mach's Principle together with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in order to show that under very specific conditions, the mass of a material will undergo a temporary fluctuation.  What we have is the entire, casually connected universe and its consequent "gravinertial field' as per Mach's Principle, can be used to generate a gravinertial flux into and out of the ceramic in question, causing its mass to fluctuate temporarily.

I'm sure that sounds like an outrageous claim to any physicist who has never studied Mach's Principle or read any of Jim Woodward's papers.  :-)  It's not so outrageous and this was all peer reviewed more than a decade ago.

So let me invite you to take a few minutes and read at least one of Jim's papers from over the years.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/20/2009 03:28 pm
Thanks for the explanation. Thrust efficiency is the term I was looking for.

A pico-newton is one trillionth of a newton.  It may be that the technology will scale as you hypothesise, but that's still a long way to go.

Is that level of thrust even enough to tweak a satellite's orbit?  And the current state is, roughly, a Carvin amp, at about 20 pounds, some kind of power supply, and some extra circuitry.  On the back of the ol' envelope, you'd roughly need a satellite of about 50-100 pounds to just demonstrate this in the real world. I'm sure something could be better modeled in software, but right now, the thrust efficiency is too low.

Further, the results haven't been replicated by a different lab, for reasons which sound vague.

I've read the article once, and now have blazotron's remarks to assist in my understanding.

Well, we're not talking about pico-Newtons.  We're talking about uN or micro-Newtons which are also pretty small but not quite so small as you're talking.  :-)

Again about power system size.  Look, go on EBay and look for an ultrasonic carpet cleaner or an ultrasonic contact lens cleaner.  You'll find a $10 item that is handheld and weighs about 1/4 to 1/2 pound. The power supply in these items would work well to power a future MLT or UFG and the amount of thrust it would produce depends upon the thrust efficiency of the thruster.  But in short, though these power systems need to be carefully impedance matched, just as with any power system, they are not large, heavy etc.  As I said, one has been built and run for a 1 Mhz thruster that was half the size of a Coke can.  The power systems and supplies do not have to be large and heavy, but useful thrusters do need to have a certain level of thrust efficiency.

This work has been done in at least two labs, Jim Woodward's lab at CS Fullerton and Paul March's lab in Houston. I would love to see more replications happen very soon.  Perhaps the rotator, since it is such an inexpensive experiment to do; will get some more people interested.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/20/2009 08:07 pm
Folks:

Let me clarify a few things that G/I Thruster has said recently.  I know of at least nine other attempts at replicating Jim's Woodward mass fluctuation conjecture, his unidirectional force generators (UFG) or the Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) devices.  I’ll list them below in the year they were first published:

1.   Hector Brito’s ~1996 self contained battery operated MLT like device running at ~40 kHz that demonstrated ~1.0 micro-Newton level thrusts based on his E&M Slepian approach to this propellantless thruster business. 

2.  Andrew Palfreyman’s 1990’s UFG experiment reporting null results.

3.  Woodward’s 1997-9 graduate student Tom Mahood with his ~50 kHz UFG torque pendulum in a vacuum experiments that demonstrated thrust levels on the order of 0.10 to 1.00 micro-Newton.

4.  John Mckeever’s Oak-Ridge lab team’s 2000 MLT replication that reported thrust signatures  that were attributed to thermal effects.

5.  Paul March’s 2004 & 2005 MLT data running at 2.2 and 3.8 MHz reported up to 5.0 milli-Newton results.

6.  John Cramer’s 2005 thru 2007, 220 Hz Machian Guitar mass fluctuation experiment which resulted in an ambiguous results before their BPP money ran out.

7.  Nembo Buldrini’s 2006, 50 kHz and 2.0 MHz ambiguous or null results.

8.  John Strader’s 2006, ~400 kHz MLT experiments that reported null results.

9.  Duncan Cumming’s 2007 self-contained coke can MLT running at ~400 kHz reported null results.

10.  Jim Woodward’s latest 2008/2009 M-E rotary proof of principle tests that have clearly demonstrated above the noise 2-omega M-E like mass fluctuations signatures.


Looking back over this list I can appreciate why a lot of folks view Woodward’s M-E conjecture in the same light as they do the “Cold Fusion” conjecture, but in a similar way, I believe that Woodward’s M-E conjecture will be validated in a similar manner as the cold fusion story has unfolded over the last twenty years.  (See attached CBS 60 Minutes story on the resurrection of cold fusion that aired yesterday (04-19-2009).  Why do I think this way?  Because of the extreme difficulty in getting the phase relations between the acoustical and electrical drive signals in these M-E based devices to constructively interfere with each other instead of killing each other off.   In others words there are thousands of ways to build and operate these devices where they won’t work, but there is only a few ways to build and operate them where they will work.  Hector Brito, Tom Mahood and I are the only folks that I know of who happened to luck into the right combination of ingredients to make it play with my and Jim Woodward’s Mach-2MHz MLT experiment providing the largest thrust signatures to date.

BTW, Woodward’s lowest vacuum pressure ever achieved in his lab was on the order of ~2x10^-3 Torr and not 1x10^-6 Torr as reported by G/I thruster.  Considering that Woodward has never pumped his Plexiglas vacuum chambers with anything more than a standard Welch vacuum roughing pump, that is hardly surprising.  However, ~2x10^-3 Torr pressure is quite sufficient to kill off 99.99% of the ion wind issues that could contaminate Woodward’s MLT results, even when his MLTs were only producing a few micro-Newton. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/20/2009 09:19 pm
Yes well, memory fades.  I checked and you're right Paul, Jim's vacuum is E-3T.  But your memory isn't so good either!  I think John ran at 200 khz and Duncan at 1 mhz.  :-)  Also, since Hector was not even looking at Woodward's theory, and John was trying to run self induced currents, you wouldn't necessarily put them on the list.

And certainly you missed all of Jim's work until 2008.  Oooops. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/21/2009 04:19 am
G/I Thruster:

Dr. Cumming ran two different experiments with the first one running at 430 kHz and the second one in self contained Coke can version at ~1.0 MHz, so I was wrong on the second one and correct on the first.  However, both of these tests were still null results. 

As to Hector Brito's Slepian work, Hector may not have based his theoretical approach on Dr. Woodward's M-E conjecture, but the end results created near identical experimetnal ExB designs when compared to Jim's MLTs, so if it works or doesn't, IMO it still has a bearing on this verification list.

BTW, I didn't include the majority of Dr. Woodward's experiments during this time period because I was trying to list independent verifications by other experimenters and I only included Jim’s latest 2008/9 M-E proof of principle rotary work because of its importance and since nobody has tried a replication of it yet. 


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: D_Dom on 04/21/2009 05:59 am
I have been thinking about small scale technology demonstrators. Comments earlier about ultrasonic contact lens cleaner reminded me of a toothbrush I bought recently. Manufacturer claims 1.6 Mhz for over twenty minutes cumulative between charges. Amazingly small and light, I wonder how far it will fly after I modify it into a model rocket. I have had great fun launching 35mm film canisters from my hand after filling with a little water and half an alka-seltzer tablet. Makes a wonderful demonstration for grade school kids.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 04/21/2009 08:26 am
"By what mechanism is it reacting against the rest of the universe?  Why do other devices not react with the rest of the universe like this?  Why is this one special?  How can it instantaneously signal the rest of the universe to react?  Saying it is so doesn't make it so."

You sound like a physicist so let me appeal to you as if you are one.

The question you raise is the subject of all of Jim Woodward's theoretical writings found over the years in places like Foundations of Physics.  If you're a physicist with a real interest, you'll want to read the papers rather than take the word of a mindless philosopher like myself.  You can find some of the papers here:

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

However, to answer your question in short: the mechanism you are asking about is the ability to create a Mach Effect (M-E) otherwise known as a "mass fluctuation."  Jim's true genius apart from being a wonderfully gifted experimenter, is his bringing Mach's Principle together with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in order to show that under very specific conditions, the mass of a material will undergo a temporary fluctuation.  What we have is the entire, casually connected universe and its consequent "gravinertial field' as per Mach's Principle, can be used to generate a gravinertial flux into and out of the ceramic in question, causing its mass to fluctuate temporarily.

I'm sure that sounds like an outrageous claim to any physicist who has never studied Mach's Principle or read any of Jim Woodward's papers.  :-)  It's not so outrageous and this was all peer reviewed more than a decade ago.

So let me invite you to take a few minutes and read at least one of Jim's papers from over the years.

I'm an engineer, but I have a strong background in physics, so I can hold my own until the math gets really gnarly.  I have not looked at any of Woodward's papers before, so I'll gladly do that when I get a chance.  Unfortunately, I am leaving in a few days for a 3 week stint at a caving expedition to Mexico (http://www.usdct.org if you are interested--and no I am not insane enough to dive in-cave), so it will be a while before I can sit down and really absorb them. 

[edited for typo]
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 04/21/2009 08:47 am
Folks:

Let me clarify a few things that G/I Thruster has said recently.  I know of at least nine other attempts at replicating Jim's Woodward mass fluctuation conjecture, his unidirectional force generators (UFG) or the Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) devices.  I’ll list them below in the year they were first published:

1.   Hector Brito’s ~1996 self contained battery operated MLT like device running at ~40 kHz that demonstrated ~1.0 micro-Newton level thrusts based on his E&M Slepian approach to this propellantless thruster business. 

2.  Andrew Palfreyman’s 1990’s UFG experiment reporting null results.

3.  Woodward’s 1997-9 graduate student Tom Mahood with his ~50 kHz UFG torque pendulum in a vacuum experiments that demonstrated thrust levels on the order of 0.10 to 1.00 micro-Newton.

4.  John Mckeever’s Oak-Ridge lab team’s 2000 MLT replication that reported thrust signatures  that were attributed to thermal effects.

5.  Paul March’s 2004 & 2005 MLT data running at 2.2 and 3.8 MHz reported up to 5.0 milli-Newton results.

6.  John Cramer’s 2005 thru 2007, 220 Hz Machian Guitar mass fluctuation experiment which resulted in an ambiguous results before their BPP money ran out.

7.  Nembo Buldrini’s 2006, 50 kHz and 2.0 MHz ambiguous or null results.

8.  John Strader’s 2006, ~400 kHz MLT experiments that reported null results.

9.  Duncan Cumming’s 2007 self-contained coke can MLT running at ~400 kHz reported null results.

10.  Jim Woodward’s latest 2008/2009 M-E rotary proof of principle tests that have clearly demonstrated above the noise 2-omega M-E like mass fluctuations signatures.


Looking back over this list I can appreciate why a lot of folks view Woodward’s M-E conjecture in the same light as they do the “Cold Fusion” conjecture, but in a similar way, I believe that Woodward’s M-E conjecture will be validated in a similar manner as the cold fusion story has unfolded over the last twenty years.  (See attached CBS 60 Minutes story on the resurrection of cold fusion that aired yesterday (04-19-2009).  Why do I think this way?  Because of the extreme difficulty in getting the phase relations between the acoustical and electrical drive signals in these M-E based devices to constructively interfere with each other instead of killing each other off.   In others words there are thousands of ways to build and operate these devices where they won’t work, but there is only a few ways to build and operate them where they will work.  Hector Brito, Tom Mahood and I are the only folks that I know of who happened to luck into the right combination of ingredients to make it play with my and Jim Woodward’s Mach-2MHz MLT experiment providing the largest thrust signatures to date.

BTW, Woodward’s lowest vacuum pressure ever achieved in his lab was on the order of ~2x10^-3 Torr and not 1x10^-6 Torr as reported by G/I thruster.  Considering that Woodward has never pumped his Plexiglas vacuum chambers with anything more than a standard Welch vacuum roughing pump, that is hardly surprising.  However, ~2x10^-3 Torr pressure is quite sufficient to kill off 99.99% of the ion wind issues that could contaminate Woodward’s MLT results, even when his MLTs were only producing a few micro-Newton. 


Star-Drive:

Thank you for the nice summary of experimental work.

I wanted to comment that while 2E-3 Torr may be plenty to kill off most of the ion effects, it places the pressure almost at the peak of the Crookes Radiometer effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/21/2009 12:18 pm
Blazotron:

This independent M-E conjecture experimental verification list is not exhaustive, but it does cover the major replication efforts I'm familiar with. 

As to the Crookes Radiometer effect, that is somewhat problematic at 2x10^3 Torr and it is one reason I keep harping on going down to at least 1x10^-6 Torr or even 1x10^-7 Torr where the vacuum relay folks hang their hats.  However, Woodward did mitigate the Radiometer effect and others like it by potting all his latter vacuum test articles in steel Faraday shields that would have killed off any such thrust effects.  In other words what he is reporting is most likely something that is NOT due to mundane effects.  He is too good an experimeter to get caught in that trap more than once.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/21/2009 04:43 pm
Folks:

Let me clarify a few things that G/I Thruster has said recently.  I know of at least nine other attempts at replicating Jim's Woodward mass fluctuation conjecture, his unidirectional force generators (UFG) or the Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) devices.  I’ll list them below in the year they were first published:

1.   Hector Brito’s ~1996 self contained battery operated MLT like device running at ~40 kHz that demonstrated ~1.0 micro-Newton level thrusts based on his E&M Slepian approach to this propellantless thruster business. 

2.  Andrew Palfreyman’s 1990’s UFG experiment reporting null results.

3.  Woodward’s 1997-9 graduate student Tom Mahood with his ~50 kHz UFG torque pendulum in a vacuum experiments that demonstrated thrust levels on the order of 0.10 to 1.00 micro-Newton.

4.  John Mckeever’s Oak-Ridge lab team’s 2000 MLT replication that reported thrust signatures  that were attributed to thermal effects.

5.  Paul March’s 2004 & 2005 MLT data running at 2.2 and 3.8 MHz reported up to 5.0 milli-Newton results.

6.  John Cramer’s 2005 thru 2007, 220 Hz Machian Guitar mass fluctuation experiment which resulted in an ambiguous results before their BPP money ran out.

7.  Nembo Buldrini’s 2006, 50 kHz and 2.0 MHz ambiguous or null results.

8.  John Strader’s 2006, ~400 kHz MLT experiments that reported null results.

9.  Duncan Cumming’s 2007 self-contained coke can MLT running at ~400 kHz reported null results.

10.  Jim Woodward’s latest 2008/2009 M-E rotary proof of principle tests that have clearly demonstrated above the noise 2-omega M-E like mass fluctuations signatures.


Looking back over this list I can appreciate why a lot of folks view Woodward’s M-E conjecture in the same light as they do the “Cold Fusion” conjecture, but in a similar way, I believe that Woodward’s M-E conjecture will be validated in a similar manner as the cold fusion story has unfolded over the last twenty years.  (See attached CBS 60 Minutes story on the resurrection of cold fusion that aired yesterday (04-19-2009).  Why do I think this way?  Because of the extreme difficulty in getting the phase relations between the acoustical and electrical drive signals in these M-E based devices to constructively interfere with each other instead of killing each other off.   In others words there are thousands of ways to build and operate these devices where they won’t work, but there is only a few ways to build and operate them where they will work.  Hector Brito, Tom Mahood and I are the only folks that I know of who happened to luck into the right combination of ingredients to make it play with my and Jim Woodward’s Mach-2MHz MLT experiment providing the largest thrust signatures to date.

BTW, Woodward’s lowest vacuum pressure ever achieved in his lab was on the order of ~2x10^-3 Torr and not 1x10^-6 Torr as reported by G/I thruster.  Considering that Woodward has never pumped his Plexiglas vacuum chambers with anything more than a standard Welch vacuum roughing pump, that is hardly surprising.  However, ~2x10^-3 Torr pressure is quite sufficient to kill off 99.99% of the ion wind issues that could contaminate Woodward’s MLT results, even when his MLTs were only producing a few micro-Newton. 


Star-Drive:

Thank you for the nice summary of experimental work.

I wanted to comment that while 2E-3 Torr may be plenty to kill off most of the ion effects, it places the pressure almost at the peak of the Crookes Radiometer effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer

That's a very astute observation.  However, Woodward's controls care after even that issue.

The point of vacuum is that if there is any ion wind or thermal contamination of the data, this will be apparent from even E-1T.  If you run a test item and get a specific thrust result, then run it at E-1T and E-2T and get the same result, then you can guess you'll get the same at E-3T and you're justified in accepting there is no ion wind or thermal forms of spurious.  Another way we know we are not seeing something like Crooke's is that the thrusters are reversible.  For instance, an MLT will produce no thrust when its e and b fields are phased at 0 or 180 degrees.  They produce thrust in one direction at 90* and thrust in the opposite direction at 270*.  That's not something that can be explained by reference to radiometers.

Cool that you're caving.  Too bad you're not doing the diving.  Did someone hire you to carry out the em. . .you know. . .stuff you can't leave behind?  Or are you paying someone else to carry their trash?  :-)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/21/2009 07:19 pm
Sorry about the misunderstanding between pico- and micro-.  I got pico-from stardrives post on 04-19-09.

Backing up to the Warpstar craft.  It is not actually designed, it is thought to be designed.  Without getting too hung up semantically, it is not designed at the same level of detail that Ares is, or even Jupiter Direct.  Therefore I think it’s a bit premature to be speaking of it as if it were designed to reach the Moon in a couple of hours, whereas the folks designing Ares seem to have more credibility in saying that their craft is designed to reach the Moon in a couple of days.

Again, a semantic bit of hand waving.  I’m not satisfied with the idea that science can’t “prove” any thing, because what science does is provide “compelling evidence”.  Let me rephrase my remarks to suggest that Jim Woodward has not offered sufficient “compelling evidence” so that there is little room for debate as to the outcome of his experiments.

But also about the power requirements.  There’s a post above that mentions a Carvin 2kw amp.  This thing has got to weigh twenty pounds or more, and be supplied by 110V current, right?  Please explain how a 2kw power supply provides only micro-newtons of force.  It would seem that an electric motor is more efficient.

But more about the math and my reading of IAC- 08 – C4.4.7.  which I’ll call “The Theory Paper”.

Group velocity is the speed with which the modulation of the wave propagates through space.  It is not the speed which any particles propagate. It is here that the paper falls apart for me, and is precisely the point in the cannonball analogy above where the analogy falls apart.  All of the cannonballs’ momentii (if that’s the word) will cancel out, unless the mass of a cannonball changes.  Then the analogy can propel itself forward.  But there’s no explanation of what it is that changes about the cannonballs to provide momentum.

Group velocity is dw/dk, where w is the wave’s angular frequency and k is the wave number.  I don’t see how this affects momentum.

In blazotron’s analysis of the theory paper, he states: “Then [Shawyer] states, completely without support, that the force imparted by a wave with group velocity vg is 2nhfA*(vg/c).  Nowhere in the text is it explained why we should be using the group velocity of the wave to calculate force.”  I think blazeotron is somewhat incorrect in stating where in the text is this explained.  The author alludes to:

CULLEN A.L. ‘Absolute Power Measurements at Microwave Frequencies’ IEE proceedings Vol 99 Part IV 1952

as explaining where he gets the above derivation.  But this is not an actual explanation, so semantically I guess, blazotron is right!

Please post Cullen’s paper on this forum.  A simple web search will not provide this paper online.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/21/2009 08:09 pm
"But also about the power requirements.  There’s a post above that mentions a Carvin 2kw amp.  This thing has got to weigh twenty pounds or more, and be supplied by 110V current, right?  Please explain how a 2kw power supply provides only micro-newtons of force.  It would seem that an electric motor is more efficient."

Em, yeah.  An electric motor would be more efficient than the test articles to date if indeed it had something in space to actually push off of--which it would not--which is why till the foreseeable future we're stuck with rockets.

Look, yer joshin' me right?  How many times do you need an answer to the same question?

To the best of my knowledge, the most power ever dissipated in any of the test articles is about 400 watts.  You can get that from a single battery the size of a wine cork.

Look, if you want to form a meaningful comparison between M-E thrusters and existing tech, perhaps we can fumble through one though I don't see this as useful yet.  But lets have at.

I don't know how many watts Paul March used on his MTL but lets say he used 250.  He got 5 mN thrust.  If that's so, then the same thruster could be bundled with three others and you'd have 20 mN thrust, the same as the max thrust of the ion thrusters on the GOCE.  Now I don't know what the power requirements are for the GOCE thrusters but I do know they require 40 kg of Xenon for a 2 year mission, plus the power system.  So if your MLT bundle is anywhere in the ballpark of 40 kg, and the power requirements are anything near the same (1KW), you know that the MLT is competitive with some of the best ion tech out there.

Anyone know what GOCE's thrusters require?

But again let me state in no uncertain terms that I am NOT SAYING this is a useful comparison.  Before we could talk about competing with things like ion, we'd have to solve issues like the ceramic ageing issue and we haven't even begun to look into that yet.  We are not working on prototyping.  We're working on pure research.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/21/2009 10:22 pm

"But also about the power requirements.  There’s a post above that mentions a Carvin 2kw amp.  This thing has got to weigh twenty pounds or more, and be supplied by 110V current, right?  Please explain how a 2kw power supply provides only micro-newtons of force.  It would seem that an electric motor is more efficient."

Em, yeah.  An electric motor would be more efficient than the test articles to date if indeed it had something in space to actually push off of--which it would not--which is why till the foreseeable future we're stuck with rockets.
.
(snip)
.

I don't know how many watts Paul March used on his MTL but lets say he used 250.  He got 5 mN thrust.  If that's so, then the same thruster could be bundled with three others and you'd have 20 mN thrust, the same as the max thrust of the ion thrusters on the GOCE.  Now I don't know what the power requirements are for the GOCE thrusters but I do know they require 40 kg of Xenon for a 2 year mission, plus the power system.  So if your MLT bundle is anywhere in the ballpark of 40 kg, and the power requirements are anything near the same (1KW), you know that the MLT is competitive with some of the best ion tech out there.

Anyone know what GOCE's thrusters require?

But again let me state in no uncertain terms that I am NOT SAYING this is a useful comparison.  Before we could talk about competing with things like ion, we'd have to solve issues like the ceramic ageing issue and we haven't even begun to look into that yet.  We are not working on prototyping.  We're working on pure research.

Guys:

The Mach-2MHz that produced a peak thrust of ~5.0 milli-Newton was absorbing approximately 7.0 Watts from the 3.8 MHz transmitter it was attached to at the time.  In other words its efficiency was ~0.714 mill-Newton/Watt or its Newton/Watt efficiency was 0.00071 Newton/Watt.

If you don't like that performance metric, how about the equivalent specific impulse (Isp-e) approach that utilizes the E=m*c^2 energy to mass equivalency equation which indicates that the Mach-2MHz had an Isp-e of ~1.0 tera-seconds, see the attached derivation.  This level of performance is currently very competitive with a number of ion rockets on an Isp basis, but as noted by G/I Thruster, its lifetime is only measured in minutes, instead of years required by current satellite customers, and its thrust level needs to be brought up to the ~100 milli-Newton range to be competitive with the likes of NASA's Deep Space-1.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/21/2009 11:19 pm
Thanks Paul but if you could help us out here, I honestly believe John's concern is better answered not by looking at Isp and mass energy equivalence, but by comparison to something like GOCE.  If your test article only dissipated 7 watts, then using it as an example, we can say that 4 of them would provide the same thrust as the GOCE system.  GOCE is covered in PV cells and it's a safe bet I think that the thrusters need a lot more than 28 watts.  So if we ignore the ceramic die-off issue, and toss in some spit-ball figures for MLT thermal stability subsystems, we can still assert that your experiment shows performance well in advance of this new satellite station keeping system.  An MLT with no thrust efficiency improvement over what you saw in the lab would be vastly more capable than this cutting-edge system being flown by ESA.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Jim on 04/21/2009 11:23 pm
cutting-edge system being flown by ESA.

What cutting-edge system?  Ion propulsion is not new.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/21/2009 11:38 pm
cutting-edge system being flown by ESA.

What cutting-edge system?  Ion propulsion is not new.

Ion is not new.  It's had millions in development for more than 4 decades.  But as the text says, no normal propulsion system can do what it does.  GOCE itself is new.  Very new.  A good standard to measure against when talking about satellite station-keeping:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GOCE/SEMSZCEH1TF_0.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 04/22/2009 02:34 am
<snip>
In blazotron’s analysis of the theory paper, he states: “Then [Shawyer] states, completely without support, that the force imparted by a wave with group velocity vg is 2nhfA*(vg/c).  Nowhere in the text is it explained why we should be using the group velocity of the wave to calculate force.”  I think blazeotron is somewhat incorrect in stating where in the text is this explained.  The author alludes to:

CULLEN A.L. ‘Absolute Power Measurements at Microwave Frequencies’ IEE proceedings Vol 99 Part IV 1952

as explaining where he gets the above derivation.  But this is not an actual explanation, so semantically I guess, blazotron is right!

Please post Cullen’s paper on this forum.  A simple web search will not provide this paper online.

My impression was that the reference to that paper was in regards to the derivation of the radiation pressure.  Looking at it again, it seems a little ambiguous to me which he is referring to.  That article is hard to get, but I put a request in to the library here to pull the journals from the remote storage they are located in now.  Hopefully I will have them to post before I leave for the expedition.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/22/2009 04:03 am
cutting-edge system being flown by ESA.

What cutting-edge system?  Ion propulsion is not new.

Ion is not new.  It's had millions in development for more than 4 decades.  But as the text says, no normal propulsion system can do what it does.  GOCE itself is new.  Very new.  A good standard to measure against when talking about satellite station-keeping:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GOCE/SEMSZCEH1TF_0.html

G/I Thruster:

For the record, the GOCE electric ion thruster's maximum Isp is 3,500 seconds per the following document:

http://earth.esa.int/goce04/goce_proceedings/46_edwards.pdf

That's not very high even by ion rocket standards, but it still makes the Mach-2MHz during its peak performance period have an Isp ratio of 1.2x10^12 sec / 3,500 sec = 342,857,143.0 to 1.0 in comparsion to the GOCE ion rockets.  I guess we could say that was a reasonable improvement in propulsion efficiency for a new system... :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 04/22/2009 05:45 am
I think it's kinda silly to calculate Isp based on mass-energy expenditure, unless you're powering your thruster with a total conversion plant.  Sure, it satisfies Tsiolkovsky's equation, but with modern energy supplies like hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells (or even hydrogen/boron-11 fusion reactors) you have to bring a preposterous amount of fuel to get a significantly non-unity mass ratio that way, so it's not really an informative representation...

If you assume expended fuel is dumped overboard, a reasonable estimate can be obtained for WarpStar 1 using conventional procedures.  At 1 N/W, we get

(1 N.s/J)*(1.504e7 J/kg)/(9.80665 N/kg) = 1.534e6 s

Still not bad - according to Wikipedia, that's 15 times as high as the theoretical maximum for an Orion...

If you keep expended fuel on the ship (possibly a better alternative than wasting all that water, even though performance suffers a bit), it gets complicated.  Technically the mass-energy method is more correct, but as mentioned above it's uninformative.  It also reaches a singularity with a solar-powered thruster, where (except for solar panel ablation and such) no mass at all is expended.

For a solar-powered thruster, or even a thruster-on-a-flywheel-powered thruster, perhaps we could back-calculate an effective Isp out of Tsiolkovsky's equation using the power system mass and mean time between failures:

dV = F*t/m -> F*t/(m*g*ln(MR)) = Isp

where t is the MTBF for the power system, m is the total mass and MR is the ratio between m and the non-power-system mass.  This should also work reasonably well for a fueled thruster if you take t as the fuel exhaustion time and MR as the familiar fueled/dry mass ratio:

WarpStar 1: (3.2e10 N.s)/((26465 kg)*(9.80665 N/kg)*ln(1.087)) = 1.47e6 s

which is fairly close to the water-dumping maximum calculated above, probably due to the near-unity mass ratio. Of course, this method results in an Isp that depends on spacecraft parameters...  Isp really wasn't designed to deal with propellantless thrusters...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/22/2009 03:09 pm
I would say that ion propulsion is pretty cutting edge; it’s not the date the idea was floated, it’s more like the date the tech becomes widespread.

And, 400 watts from a cork sized battery?  I don’t have access to this technology.  Is this actually a capacitor battery, one that you charge the heck out of and then can use to power the thrusters?

Apologies for not being able to move beyond Cullen’s paper.  I’m not knowledgeable enough about the field to move beyond the equation I get stuck on.  How does group velocity factor into this?

And I’m still struggling with thrust efficiency; they seem unbelievably high.  The principle of MLT, if I understand correctly, is the direct conversion of energy to momentum, which bypasses the inefficiency of propelling hot gas or ions as in typical propulsion systems.  At the same time there is the payload savings of not having to carry all the propellant and rocket infrastructure, which just weighs down the craft, especially when empty.

The suggestion seems to be that the Carvin amp or whatever, is a laboratory expedient.  The proposed self contained energy supply would be some sort of super capacitor whose energy could be tapped for momentum conversion.  This capacitor would carry more energy than a nuclear reactor of the same energy output.  Is that correct?

Even so, current output for a 2kw system is on the order of micro-newtons.  It would still have to be scaled up to a 1kw system putting out milli-newtons, as in GOCE.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/22/2009 05:13 pm
"And, 400 watts from a cork sized battery?  I don't have access to this technology.  Is this actually a capacitor battery, one that you charge the heck out of and then can use to power the thrusters?"

Yes, these are the new batteries from A123 that will be powering the next generation of electric vehicles like the Chevy Volt.  I picked up a test kit with 3 of these cells a year or two ago and sent it to a PhD EE friend who benched them for me.  They do indeed put out over 400 watts each and have a C rating of more than 40.  But they're batteries, not supercaps.  The barium titaniate "supercap" technology from EEStor is reported to have an even higher power density but that's not on the market yet.

"The suggestion seems to be that the Carvin amp or whatever, is a laboratory expedient.  The proposed self contained energy supply would be some sort of super capacitor whose energy could be tapped for momentum conversion.  This capacitor would carry more energy than a nuclear reactor of the same energy output.  Is that correct?"

Well the point is that no one would ever try to fly something like the Carvin.  Have you thought what the extension cord would weigh?  :-)  Amps, generators, invertors, power supplies of all sorts can be miniaturized and they work on completely different principles when they're driven by a DC source as opposed to something you plug into the wall.  Now all that aside, the source that powers the inverter, or whatever, the place we get the power from--has to be suitable to the task you want to accomplish.

When Paul was originally writing the WarpStar paper he and I discussed quite a bit what is a suitable illustration.  1 N/W baseline figure was chosen because is was viewed as an attainable goal and yet, not so overwhelmingly efficient that the illustration would be rendered trite.  With this sort of thrust efficiency, it still matters where you get your power from.  He was forced to choose the highest energy density system he could find for a 12 hour duration flight (5 hours each way plus margins.)  Now if you had 10 N/W MLT's, you could easily fly to LEO on batteries and they wouldn't even need to be good batteries.  You could fly WarpStar 1 to Mars regularly, etc.  The point of the illustration is not to make outrageous claims.  It's to get us start thinking about how electric spacecraft are so very different from rockets.  Once you replace "boost and glide" with "the one gee solution" everything is different.  We need to think about that.

So to answer your question about a cap vs a fission reactor, that's not really a good handling of the issue.  Caps have to be charged after every use.  Fission reactors are "charged" much less often and they run for a very long time (typically 5 years I think) on that charge.  Fission is a nice source for spacecraft that stay out for many months at a time but supercaps would be great for something robotic flying round trip to LEO every 3 hours.  Each power system has a place or rather, each application has reasons to optimize by using one power source rather than others.

And BTW, yes I know GOCE doesn't have the Isp of Deep Space 1, but for a first application of a low thrust efficiency M-E thruster, we are probably looking at satellite station keeping, not robotic travel to Jupiter's icy moons.  So GECO really is the more applicable technology to compare against.  So far, the discovery phase lab experiments seem to have a huge advantage over the cutting edge-tech on GECO.

Someone tell me if I remember correctly--NASA spends $50 million annually boosting hydrazine to ISS to keep her on orbit?  If we had commercial thrusters with efficiencies like what Paul saw, we could replace all the hydrazine on ISS and save about half a billion dollars over the course of a decade.  That's just one application.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/22/2009 07:11 pm
So the power source is envisioned as either a super battery or a super cap, which will have to be recharged upon return from, say, the Moon, roughly a ten to twelve hour trip.

But if we're accelerating our craft, say an Orion Service Module sized craft (3700kg), 1G halfway to the Moon, and 1G deceleration, landing, and returning the same way, that's a fair amount of power, much more than they're currently envisioning for a more leisurely five day trip.  I understand that the technology isn't quite ready for this scale, but that would be the goal of Warpstar, wouldn't it?

Backing up to the more nearly attainable satellite orbit tweakage function, the sticking point is currently mass of power supply and impedance matching circuitry, right?

And further backing up to that blasted Carvin amp.  It's true, then, what I suggest; that the device is still plugged into the wall.  Back at the lab.  Which is fine, because my Mac amp is only playing CD's.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/22/2009 07:38 pm
One can envision any suitable power source.  In the WarpStar design, GM fuel cells generate electricity from the H2 stored on board.  I suggest you look at the paper.  It's a fun read.

Things like impedance matching are not a significant technical hurdle.  There are probably hundreds of thousands of EE's who know how to do this and it is routinely done in all electronics.  The trouble here only comes when you're working alone with no budget.  Jim is a genius but he's not an EE.  If he had an EE working full time in the lab, much more than twice the work would be getting done.

The significant hurdles have to do with things like: building a demonstrator that produces so much thrust one can't quibble or ignore it, solving the ceramic ageing issue, designing thermal stability systems, etc.  None of this is particularly challenging so far as we know.  For instance, there's already been a lot of conjecture concerning the ageing issue.  If we were to take some ceramic from a played out MLT or UFG, slice it and stick it under a scanning electron microscope, we'd have answers instantly.  Maybe not all of them but in just a few minutes we'd be on the road to discovery.  Trouble is, you don't get time on a SEM without a budget.

Yes, all Jim's tests are with the test items plugged into the wall.  When it comes time for a new kind of demonstration, it's a simple matter to have someone build a self -contained, battery operated power system and we know who to go to for this since they've done it before.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/22/2009 09:56 pm
G/I Thruster:

"Someone tell me if I remember correctly--NASA spends $50 million annually boosting hydrazine to ISS to keep her on orbit?"

Dependent on what Russia is charging us today and tomorrow, the last figure I saw for ISS reboost costs was ~$150 million per year plus the $40 million taxi service charge for each astronaut brought up to and ferried back home.  All in the name of international cooperation...

93143

“Of course, this method results in an Isp that depends on spacecraft parameters...  Isp really wasn't designed to deal with propellantless thrusters...”

You can measure propulsion efficiency on an engine level or a vehicle level and both approaches have their merits and shortfalls dependent on the analysis goals.  The first performance metric I tendered, i.e., the Newton/Watt metric, is much more engine specific than the equivalent Isp metric, which like its rocket brethren, is more vehicle performance centric, but both are usable dependent on the goal of the analysis and the intended audience.  Since most rocket technologists already understand specific impulse, that metric provides a readymade performance ruler that we can all point to when comparing conventional rockets with these M-E field propulsion driven vehicles that directly convert gravinertial field energy into a directed momentum flux in the G/I field that can in turn be applied to the vehicle with some efficiency number applied to this conversion process.  That’s where the Newton/Watt figure makes the most sense to use though one could also use a heat pump like coefficient of performance (COP) metric as well, but the end results are the same.  You put in XXX.X Watts of locally supplied catalytic power into the M-E based field drive from a local vehicle energy source like a battery, fuel cell, or nuclear power plant, and the M-E drive then produces XXX.XX Newton of thrust for XXXX number of seconds.   How long that thrust is produced is strictly a matter of the energy density (Joules/kg) of the local source. 

Now if you want to determine the terminal velocities of an M-E driven vehicle, then the M-E drive’s equivalent Isp and Total Impulse (mass*velocity) metrics comes in handy for calculating such figures because they take into account the magnitude (max power of both the power supply and M-E drive) and temporal limitations (how long they can both run) of the vehicle’s engines, local energy source AND the equivalent mass/energy harvested from the G/I field.  This is where John’s confusion seem to come into play per his below comments:

JohnFornaro

“The suggestion seems to be that the Carvin amp or whatever, is a laboratory expedient.  The proposed self contained energy supply would be some sort of super capacitor whose energy could be tapped for momentum conversion.  This capacitor would carry more energy than a nuclear reactor of the same energy output.  Is that correct?

Even so, current output for a 2kw system is on the order of micro-Newton.  It would still have to be scaled up to a 1kw system putting out milli-Newton, as in GOCE.”

G/I thruster has already addressed some aspects of this question, but the local Carvin or other local power converters and energy sources only supply the catalytic power required to initialize and maintain the possibly much larger directed momentum flux from the G/I field that then back reacts onto the vehicle.  This is where the heat pump or transistor analogy comes in handy for how these G/I field engines act like momentum amplifiers that use a very small control signal, (the local input power), to control the potentially much larger momentum flux from the cosmological G/I field. 

What currently limits the maximum thrust of these G/I thrusters is the limitations of our current G/I “transistors” and just like when the bipolar junction transistor (BJT)s first came out in 1948 at Bell Labs, their electrical gains (thrust) where very small, being on the order of 2-to-10, but they improved steadily over the last half century so that the electrical gains are now measured in the thousands for single element transistors and millions when allowed to gang multiple transistors, such as in the BJT Darlington Pairs.  You can see a similar performance improvement progression in the development of the turbine power plants where Frank Whittle’s first turbojet engine prototypes only produced pounds of thrust, but now through various iterative design improvements since the 1930s such as the use of  centrifugal  compressors, staged turbine blade discs, and dual or even triple axel designs, turbofan engines are now rated at up to 100,000 lb-f thrusts.  In a like manner, we will see a migration of the M-E based field drives going from micro-Newton thrust levels up to tens of thousands of Newton per engine and beyond dependent only on their ultimate thrust gains and the development efforts applied to them.

 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/22/2009 10:44 pm
Thanks for your all's efforts to explain.  I'm still asking for a posting of Cullen's paper, so that I can review and understand the math.

About transistors.  They amplify a signal, true, but they depend on power coming from another circuit.  So, the "G/I field engines act like momentum amplifiers that use a very small control signal, (the local input power), to control the potentially much larger momentum flux from the cosmological G/I field."

I hesitate to ask this, but are you guys intending to create a "flux capacitor"  in order to capture the momentum from the G/I field?  Then all this "Carvin circuitry", for want of a better term, directs this captured and stored momentum for purposes of the demonstration satellite thrusters?

Fine, but now I have to ask the question that blazotron asked above:  How can you guys access and control the momentum flux and nobody else can?  I know, we're "free" to do so, but my efforts are stymied from lack of info, hence the repeated requests for Cullen's paper.

So:  What is it that you all are pushing against? And where is the energy source that the "Carvin circuitry" can amplify and convert into directed momentum?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/22/2009 11:23 pm
 
"I hesitate to ask this, but are you guys intending to create a "flux capacitor"  in order to capture the momentum from the G/I field?"

Not really.  We don't have a way to capture or store momentum in a capacitor.  Instead, what we do is what you can literally call a "sneaky trick" in that we use the momentum flux in fits and starts.  During each cycle, the mass will fluctuate first positive, then negative, then positive, then negative again.  Each time it's positive we push it in one direction and when it's negative we pull it in the opposite direction.  Lets take an example.

You have 2 grams of active ceramic mass, probably Barium Titanate or BaTiO3 and you fluctuate it 50% at 40 khz.  That means when it moves left and is positive, you are pushing 3 grams of mass, when it moves right you are pulling 1 gram of mass.  The net difference is 2 grams of mass and you do this twice each cycle, 40,000 times each second.

The power system only makes possible the fluctuation and the push-pull motion.  The real power into the system is the gravinertial flux that is transiently altering the mass of the ceramic.  That is the power the "GI transistor" is controlling, much as a sail controls the wind or a transistor controls a larger current flow.

Additionally, we believe that mass fluctuations can be in excess of 100% which opens a whole new can of worms.  When the fluctuation is at 100%, you are literally pulling no mass so there is no force required.   Once fluctuation goes over 100%, the mass is negative and will have negative inertia, essentially self accelerating in the direction of force upon it, rather than resisting acceleration like normal mass.  This is the area where we hope to see huge thrust efficiencies.  Jim is not working in this >100% mass fluctuation area, otherwise known as "wormhole territory" but Paul is, which explains why he was seemingly able to get such large thrusts with his experiment several years ago.  Jim's derivation does not precise this "wormhole term" which is why Jim refuses to work in wormhole territory for the time being.

If one uses the "impulse term" to extrapolate what thrust inside wormhole territory should be like, you can just extend this process above.  Lets say that you have 2 grams and fluctuate it 200%.  Now you're pushing 6 grams and pulling negative 2 grams which is the same as pushing another 2 for a net of 8 grams twice each cycle.  That would be the end of the story except that under these conditions, the "wormhole term" in the derivation suddenly comes to play and makes an additional contribution.  The derivation cannot be used to calculate this contribution since it does not precise the term.  This is why Jim won't work in wormhole territory because his theory can't yet predict what sort of thrust we should see.  On the other hand, we have others willing to jump in and experiment and even though they're experimenting without the benefit of a careful prediction, there's so much to be learned this seems worth the effort.

The chief trouble with working in wormhole territory is that if an item doesn't work, there's no way to know why that's so.  So we have these two approaches. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 04/22/2009 11:37 pm
Star-Drive:  I know all that.  I'm just suggesting that calculating Isp using mass-equivalence of energy expended is not the fairest/most credible way to compare this drive with rockets and ion thrusters, since the actual fuel mass required is far larger than the mass-equivalent of the energy expended.

I have proposed an alternative method for calculating an equivalent "Isp" solely for comparison purposes.  You wouldn't actually use this number to calculate anything else; indeed, you need to know the delta-V in order to calculate it in the first place...

JohnFornaro:  Cullen's paper, IIRC, is cited by Shawyer, not Woodward.  The two thrusters are very different, and personally I don't think Shawyer's drive is going to work (although I am willing to be proved wrong).  Cullen's paper won't help you understand Mach-effect thrusters.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/23/2009 12:32 pm
10/4 on that correction about Sawyer and Woodward.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/23/2009 03:36 pm
Does the paper: "MACH’S PRINCIPLE, MASS FUCTUATIONS, AND RAPID SPACETIME TRANSPORT"

by Woodward & Mahood

as published in STAIC 2000, contain all the math and apparatus description to repeat the experiment?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/23/2009 04:10 pm

I don't think there's any one paper that has everything one would need to repeat any one experiment.  If you want to do a replication of any sort, your first and best recourse is certainly to communicate with others who are involved in the work, starting with Jim Woodward.

Which experiment were you interested in, the rotator?  You won't find that in any papers though, you will find it in Jim's most recent PPT that went out last week to his mail list.  Maybe I can get permission to post that up here.  I'm sure folks would be amazed at the level of detail in it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/23/2009 06:32 pm
Actually, I also have Mahood's 1999 thesis, presented to Woodward.  I'm not going to be setting up an experiment any time soon.  I would be happy with just the math proving the theory of this kind of propulsion.

One of my earlier posts asked if there was enough info out there to repeat one of Woodward's experiments; from your reply just now, the answer is actually no.  In order to verify Woodward's results, you have to ask him for his info, which sorta makes sense.  But I would have thought the info would be posted here in order to broaden the peer review base.

In other words, although we are free to repeat the experiments, we're either on our own, or beholden to a fellow who, if I'm reading between the lines correctly, may prefer holding his cards close to his chest.  Which is also understandable.

I know you've offered Woodward's mailing list to pre-qualified individuals, and that's potentially good, even as it is more of a private mailing.  I'm looking for a bit more public transparency, which is why I ask for materials on this forum.

Also, in the above list of individuals doing similar research, which of these are independently verifying Woodward's results?

Maybe I'll eventually want to build a Warp drive, but I gotta go mow the grass first.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/23/2009 07:31 pm
Look John, you're playing a semantics game and I'm not playing.

The info is all publicly available, it's just not in a single paper (especially one that is 10 years older than the rotator experiment.)  Jim is not playing his cards "close to the chest."  The situation is the precise opposite.  All the info anyone would want on how to do these experiments is easy to get.  Now if you don't read ANY of the papers, and you don't correspond with ANYONE doing the work, and you say you want public access, I have to think you're being disingenuous. 

I think it's fair at this point to ask what your skill set is.  I find it difficult to imagine someone who needs elementary explanations from a non technical person like myself, just to grasp the basics of standard power systems, is actually going to build anything.  I said all the info is available.  I didn't say the people doing the work were going to provide you with a bachelors in electrical engineering.  So what precisely is your skill set?

But in short, again, for the uncounted time: all of the information necessary to do these experiments is available to anyone who has an interest.  All you need to do is demonstrate that interest by reading the papers and communicating with those who know what they're doing.  Several of those who have done this work in the past did it based completely upon what they learned by reading Jim's papers and had no contact with Jim at all.  Personally I think that's a silly tack to take but skilled engineers and physicists can do that sort of thing and the rotator experiment is relatively cheap and easy to do since it does not require vacuum or a thrust balance.  It still requires someone who knows how to read an oscilloscope.

Can you read a scope, John?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 04/23/2009 09:50 pm
How does Shawyer get v = group velocity in his "emdrive"? The "v" is the velocity of the charge, not the wave, and is << c.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/24/2009 01:00 pm
I'm not playing a semantic game at all.  The simple answer is that yes, I'm free to verify the thinking behind the MLT hypothesis, but I'm going to have to hunt it down myself, becasue it won't all be presented here on this forum.

So that's the way it is in this field of endeavor.  It's frustrating for me, a beginner in all this, but it seems to comport witht he idea that science proceeds "one funeral at a time."  But my arm's tired from all the waving.

Anyhow, I have read two of the papers, but by your account, I haven't read "ANY" of them.  OK.  And as to corresponding with "ANYONE" doing this work, does that mean that none of them are corresponding on this thread?  Mr. Woodward is not, it would seem.  Whatever the legal meaning of public is, I thought this was a public forum.  Any access to info published here is available to the public.  Which is why I ask.  I'm not an insider.

As to the skill set, did I mention I'm a beginner?  I can read a scope, and I can program in assembler and there's a million other things I can't do or am not good at.  As to building anything, I am not; I'm looking to understand the math.  Already, Shawyer's math seems to have problems; by mikegi, blazotron, and my own reading.  I'll review what I have, Woodward and Mahood's papers.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/24/2009 03:49 pm
Here's the latest doc on the rotator experiment.  I don't think SPE-SIF has made the paper available yet.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 04/24/2009 05:52 pm
Here's a copy of the data from 3/28 graphed in XL.  The error bars show the standard deviation of the various data sets.  Note the shift in the effect dominance point between ascending and descending rotation data sets or the low point on the graph, showing thermal contribution.  The graph clearly indicates there is a pair of anti-phase effects at the second harmonic: electrostriction which is clearly understood and in anti-phase to it (just as the math says it should be) is the proposed Mach Effect.  This data is 3 weeks old but it's the most recent to be graphed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/02/2009 09:13 pm
Here's a vid of the rotator in operation.  I have not yet been able to get it to play.  This may be because zshare is just overwhelmed.  The 13GB file had already been DLed 6 times in the few minutes between when Jim sent this out and when I tried to view it.  It could also be because my machine and ISP are somewhat bandwidth challenged and often give trouble with vids.  Also take note that the ARC Lite in the vacuum chamber is a different experiment than the rotator.  Jim is just busy pumping out the chamber for a thruster study.
---------------
Gentlefolk,

You can now watch the rotary device in operation at ZShare.  The link is:
<http://www.zshare.net/video/59506760a6754bd2/>.  I hereby make the
implicit copyright explicit.  No distribution or use for profit without
my prior consent.

The first part of the video shows the device being cycled through a run
from 0 Hz to 60 Hz and back to 0.  At the higher speeds you can hear the
whine of the drive over the vacuum pump background noise (which is
keeping the ARC Lite balance chamber pumped out).

The second part of the video shows the instrumentation displays.  On the
left are the three oscilloscopes used.  The two analog scopes show the
capacitor voltage as one trace.  It is used as a phase reference for the
other traces.  On the lower scope the other trace is the full, broad
bandpassed differential accelerometer trace.  This output is also fed
into the Picoscope as one of its two inputs (along with the capacitor
voltage).  The trace on the upper analog scope is the isolated second
harmonic (80 KHz) present in the accelerometer trace displayed on the
lower scope.  The amplitude and phase variation of this trace is the
matter of interest in this business.  The top digital scope displays the
amplitude and phase adjusted individual accelerometer outputs (and the
red trace is the difference of the yellow and blue traces).

In the lower center is an old Monsanto counter (nixie tubes!).  The dope
who designed it thought you would like to see the counts in progress, so
the display shows that rather than the previous proximate count value
while counts are taking place.

On the right is the display of the power spectra of the differential
accelerometer (blue) and capacitor voltage (red).  Normally, for
quasi-stationary measurements the "average" mode (rather than "normal")
would be used to suppress transient noise.  But the settling time in that
mode is 5 to 10 seconds, so it is not used as the changes in rotation
speed take place too quickly for the average mode to track correctly.

The run shown in the video is for 40 KHz, 0 - 60 Hz, 6 KV amplitude (the
traces on the scopes are 1 KV/volt, and the scale is 2 volt/div).  Watch
the phase and amplitude changes of the second harmonic.  The 0 Hz signal
is electrostriction.

Have fun,

Jim
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 05/03/2009 05:44 am
How does Shawyer get v = group velocity in his "emdrive"? The "v" is the velocity of the charge, not the wave, and is << c.


It is a well known property of waveguides that the group velocity of light varies with the diameter of the waveguide.
see pg392 of "introduction to electrodynamics 2nd edition" by David Griffiths, published by Prentice Hall.

I still cannot come up with an other analogy for how the em drive works other than the mach thruster also discussed on this thread. Emdrive approaches the problem from the point of view of a varying velocity and mach drive (woodward drive) relies on varying mass. The end result is the same though - forward motion.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 05/03/2009 06:06 am


I still cannot come up with an other analogy for how the em drive works other than the mach thruster also discussed on this thread. Emdrive approaches the problem from the point of view of a varying velocity and mach drive (woodward drive) relies on varying mass. The end result is the same though - forward motion.


Actually - it may be more related to the mach effect than I first considered. If the group velocity is different at each end of the cavity then the momentum is different. The momentum term contains mass and the mach effect determines what that mass is. (we are talking photonic mass not actual rest mass here, of course) If however, in the emdrive the mass stays the same then the mach effect suggests that the distant matter in the universe would experience a velocity change instead.
That's interesting. A changed velocity here could mean a changed velocity "of the distant stars", thus allowing forward momentum of the vehicle without getting around newton's laws.
I'm going to have to look into this whole mach effect thing. I don't think it is needed as the emdrive equations conserve momentum and energy already but further investigation is always worth it to see if they are only one half of a larger story.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/03/2009 12:39 pm
The notion of "group velocity" is not intended for book-keeping momentum.  If you want to talk about the momentum of light, you have to talk about photons and they always move at c.  Group velocity has nothing to do with momentum and Shawyer's device is indeed proposing a violation of conservation of momentum.

Lots of physicists have looked at this and there's a reason Shawyer lost his funding from the British government.  His physics is wrong and his thruster has nothing in common with M-E thrusters.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/08/2009 02:40 am
"And, 400 watts from a cork sized battery?  I don't have access to this technology.  Is this actually a capacitor battery, one that you charge the heck out of and then can use to power the thrusters?"

Yes, these are the new batteries from A123 that will be powering the next generation of electric vehicles like the Chevy Volt.  I picked up a test kit with 3 of these cells a year or two ago and sent it to a PhD EE friend who benched them for me.  They do indeed put out over 400 watts each and have a C rating of more than 40.  But they're batteries, not supercaps.  The barium titaniate "supercap" technology from EEStor is reported to have an even higher power density but that's not on the market yet.

That's awesome. Handheld lasers here we come!!

Quote
And BTW, yes I know GOCE doesn't have the Isp of Deep Space 1, but for a first application of a low thrust efficiency M-E thruster, we are probably looking at satellite station keeping, not robotic travel to Jupiter's icy moons.  So GECO really is the more applicable technology to compare against.  So far, the discovery phase lab experiments seem to have a huge advantage over the cutting edge-tech on GECO.

Someone tell me if I remember correctly--NASA spends $50 million annually boosting hydrazine to ISS to keep her on orbit?  If we had commercial thrusters with efficiencies like what Paul saw, we could replace all the hydrazine on ISS and save about half a billion dollars over the course of a decade.  That's just one application.


The issue of hydrazine handling and leakage alone should make the case for this (not that we can't handle hydrazine, it's just a pain in the rear and always will be). And add to that no need for a clear line of thrust and no risk of exhaust contamination of experiments... this would be an awesome system. Especially if the caps could be made to last longer (replacement every 6 months or so).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/08/2009 08:29 am
"The issue of hydrazine handling and leakage alone should make the case for this (not that we can't handle hydrazine, it's just a pain in the rear and always will be). And add to that no need for a clear line of thrust and no risk of exhaust contamination of experiments... this would be an awesome system. Especially if the caps could be made to last longer (replacement every 6 months or so). "

There's a huge amount of utility in the fact that gravinertial thrusters don't have to be placed outside a spacecraft.  Since they have no exhaust, you can place them anywhere you please and this makes up-keep much easier.

So far as the die-off issue is concerned, we haven't had the finances to do destructive analysis of played out thrusters, but this appears to concern things like depolarization.  If that proves to be the case, then using non polarized ceramics like PMT-PT will solve the issue all at once.  It still seems very likely M-E thrusters will have no ageing issues once they go online.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 05/08/2009 07:32 pm
"The issue of hydrazine handling and leakage alone should make the case for this (not that we can't handle hydrazine, it's just a pain in the rear and always will be). And add to that no need for a clear line of thrust and no risk of exhaust contamination of experiments... this would be an awesome system. Especially if the caps could be made to last longer (replacement every 6 months or so). "

There's a huge amount of utility in the fact that gravinertial thrusters don't have to be placed outside a spacecraft.  Since they have no exhaust, you can place them anywhere you please and this makes up-keep much easier.

Aye, now Scotty can have a real engine room to call the captain from...

Quote

So far as the die-off issue is concerned, we haven't had the finances to do destructive analysis of played out thrusters, but this appears to concern things like depolarization.  If that proves to be the case, then using non polarized ceramics like PMT-PT will solve the issue all at once.  It still seems very likely M-E thrusters will have no ageing issues once they go online.

Ceramic capacitors are very durable, I've used them on Marx Ladder HV power supplies for years. The RTV potting breaks down first.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/08/2009 09:23 pm
They are durable but we've had thrust die-off issues in the past and the ageing here is well in advance of normal ageing in normal use of these caps.  There's something going on we haven't had the opportunity to check into yet.  We do know that if you bake the caps they return for a time to their original abilities but they die off again.  So what is going on here?  These caps are not generally polarized to start.  Could the thrust be forcing the tetrahedrons off axis so that instead of a chaotic, generally unpolarized state they are polarized off axis?  We haven't even taken the opportunity to polarize these caps for a single run though, that is easy to do when the time comes.

There are other possibilities.  What if the mobile ions are quantum tunneling out of the lattice while they're fluctuated light and moving fast?  That would leave a net charge on the lattice and once again, we haven't had the time and resources to check.  The ultimate in destructive analysis is to stick a failed cap under a scanning electron microscope--easy to do if you have the funds. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 05/10/2009 03:56 am
The notion of "group velocity" is not intended for book-keeping momentum.  If you want to talk about the momentum of light, you have to talk about photons and they always move at c.  Group velocity has nothing to do with momentum and Shawyer's device is indeed proposing a violation of conservation of momentum.

Lots of physicists have looked at this and there's a reason Shawyer lost his funding from the British government.  His physics is wrong and his thruster has nothing in common with M-E thrusters.

Remember in this case we are not in a true vacuum, rather we are in a waveguide. Dispersion of the wave group needs to be accounted for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity.

Shawyers device moves by recoiling from the net force at the end plates. This conserves momentum. The motion is actually in the opposite direction to the net thrust, which confirms the conservation of momentum.

(I finally found a simple description!) One really has to sit down and work thru the equations to understand it. I'd encourage everyone to do it. Persevere! The knee-jerk reaction is to dismiss it. I did so on several occasions but kept getting pulled back into it due to the fact that the math worked. Also there was that video of a test thruster actually working....
so:
The emdrive achieves motion in reaction to the net force on the end plates in an equal and opposite magnitude.

The net force exists due to the differing group velocities at each end of the waveguide.

Relativistic velocity addition is required due to the relativistic velocities involved, which implies that the photons at each end are in different reference frames.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/11/2009 01:56 pm
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but group velocity is the velocity of a wavefront, or per Wiki, the modulation or envelope of a wave.  It is a velocity, but it is not a velocity of something, that is, it is not a velocity of mass.  It is also not the velocity of a signal carrying information, which is also something less than or equal to c.

Backing up to the Wiki article, the matter wave group velocity is also just a velocity, not a velocity of matter.  How does Shawyer get work done, when all he is using is a velocity on which to hang his theory?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/14/2009 01:01 am
They are durable but we've had thrust die-off issues in the past and the ageing here is well in advance of normal ageing in normal use of these caps.  There's something going on we haven't had the opportunity to check into yet.  We do know that if you bake the caps they return for a time to their original abilities but they die off again.  So what is going on here?  These caps are not generally polarized to start.  Could the thrust be forcing the tetrahedrons off axis so that instead of a chaotic, generally unpolarized state they are polarized off axis?  We haven't even taken the opportunity to polarize these caps for a single run though, that is easy to do when the time comes.

There are other possibilities.  What if the mobile ions are quantum tunneling out of the lattice while they're fluctuated light and moving fast?  That would leave a net charge on the lattice and once again, we haven't had the time and resources to check.  The ultimate in destructive analysis is to stick a failed cap under a scanning electron microscope--easy to do if you have the funds. . .

I would venture that the B-field is putting added stress on the cap. Rank speculation on my uneducated part follows.

 Perhaps the M-E fluctuation field also screws things up on a very local scale. Such as nano-scale chaotic gravitational fluctuations within the cap might be stressing the structure. Especially if your ions are moving at "wormhole term" acceleration changes. All sorts of weird crud could be spilling out in individual locations. Most other experiments shoving ions around deal with amorphous plasmas, so perhaps this is something that otherwise wouldn't show up here?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 01:41 am
My own guess is that this thrust die-off is a consequence of the tetrahedrons being forced off axis and essentially polarizing orthogonal to the thrust axis.  The caps start off chaotic--no polarization--and when played out ceramics are baked, they regain their thrust signature.  Baking would have the effect of bringing the ceramic back to a chaotic, unpolarized state.  What we need to do are studies where we're repolarizing the ceramic.  This is easy to do.  We can even do it without removing it from the thrust balance by heating it above Curie (by running it), leaving some HV DC on it and letting it cool.

Since these thrusters make use of the piezoelectric effect, and that effect is greatest when BaTiO3 is in it's cubic, unpolarized phase (above Curie), running the caps hot has a lot to recommend it as well.  That was where Paul March got the greatest results in his MLT tests, above Curie.

Just so much to do and so little time, and Jim leaves for his 3 month break at the end of this week.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/14/2009 06:27 am
From all I read the conclusion I make is that with electromagnetism you can affect space-time.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 12:39 pm
The only way I know how to do this is by using Mach Effects according to Jim Woodward's theory.  It's true that M-E does affect space-time by kinking the gravinertial field that connects all matter in the universe.  However, rather than call it "space-time" it's probably best to precise that it affects the gravinertial field within space-time.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/14/2009 12:57 pm
I have been studying Mahood's thesis on and off over the last several weeks.  He admits that the ORNL refutation of his experimental work has some validity, but insists that further experimentation will validate his results.  Could someone post a more recent PDF of Mahood and Woodward's math and experimental work?

Mahood's math is gnarly for me, but I'm working thru the equations in his thesis appendix one by one, in case anybody is wondering, or even cares.

However, thrust efficiency is a major stumbling block, if the current (1999) readings are taken as accurate.  If my tentative suggestion of newtons per watt as a unit of measure is acceptable, the power supply for such a thruster would be distressingly large for the amount of thrust generated.

In addition, he is ignoring local gravitational effects, such as the planet Earth, in favor of distant gravitational effects, which are several orders of magnitude smaller. I don't understand the derivation of his justification for this.

Further, the thesis offers no insight as to what I understand to be the tapping of some other energy source to provide momentum.  This has to do mass fluctuations in excess of 100%, so there seems to be more recent math which I would appreciate reviewing.

Finally,  the mass fluctuations of the Ti ion appear to take place at non-relativistic speeds.  What is the math behind this assertion?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 01:14 pm
John, I appreciate all these questions but the only way to get the answers is to go on the two web sites provided and read the papers.

Try to remember, Tom Mayhood was Jim's graduate student.  Tom is an engineer, not a physicist.  The math with regards M-E theory is Jim's math.  That's the gnarley stuff because it's field theory.  If you can't do general relativity, you're not going to do this part of the math.  But you don't have to. It was all peer-reviewed more than a decade ago and came through shining.

In any event, there are lots of more recent papers.  You're reading one of the oldest.  If you want to understand pure theory better, read the papers by Jim from a decade ago.  If you want to understamnd the engineering behind the most recent tests, you'll want to ask for copies of Jim's STAIF papers the last few years.  For copyright reasons Jim has no control over, the STAIF papers cannot be posted online but I'm sure Paul March can send you some privately if you like.  But truly, there are at least a dozen papers posted online that you could go through first.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 01:22 pm
You can find some of the papers here:

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

. . .Unfortunately, I am leaving in a few days for a 3 week stint at a caving expedition to Mexico (http://www.usdct.org if you are interested--and no I am not insane enough to dive in-cave), so it will be a while before I can sit down and really absorb them. 


Anyone know if Blazotron made it out of the cave alive?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/14/2009 02:28 pm
The papers published are exactly the papers I have read. Not only are they a decade old, they are also a decade old.  Your suggestion above is confusing to me.  It seems to suggest that the... well, I don't know exactly what it suggests.

Anyhow, I have contacted Mr. Woodward.  PM me with Paul March's email, if you don't mind.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/14/2009 03:55 pm
What about the Onion Drive? I saw it's theory in the aiaa presentation 2008.

http://www.aiaa-la.org/flyers/Adv%20Space%20Propulsion%20for%20Interstellar%20Travel%20-%20GMeholic%20042408.pdf

Slide 34/55


Is it equal to the MLT thruster?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 07:44 pm
No.  It's junk science.  I was just asked my analysis of this yesterday.  Since my response, half a dozen physicists have responded about how the physics doesn't work either.  It's all junk.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/14/2009 07:52 pm
Sith:

The nuclear bomb based Project Orion propulsion approach had plenty power, but its Isp was "only" around 10,000 seconds.  The worst MLT on the other hand has an equivalent Isp measured in the tera-seconds and it works rapidly up from there as the delivered thrust increases. 

John F.:

You can contact me me thru the NSF "My-messages" e-mail pull down tab.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/14/2009 07:54 pm
GI Thruster:

What is junk science?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 08:46 pm
Star-Drive, the "Onion Drive" (not "Orion") is sci-fi UFO myth junk science.  It was shredded on one of Greg Meholic's distributions yesterday by half a dozen physicists including Jim.  Someone recast the garbage from years ago in new form and is pretending it's real science when it's not.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/14/2009 09:00 pm
And when I looked later the Onion Drive's home page
http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/oniondrive/onion.htm
on the botton of the site was written something about the Schauberger's "Repulsine" and the Searl levity disc. Both of the crafts - are they a deception? Somewhere I've read that the IGV has been tested by some Air Force guys back in the 1970s. Was it realy airborne?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 05/14/2009 09:30 pm
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but group velocity is the velocity of a wavefront, or per Wiki, the modulation or envelope of a wave.  It is a velocity, but it is not a velocity of something, that is, it is not a velocity of mass.  It is also not the velocity of a signal carrying information, which is also something less than or equal to c.

Backing up to the Wiki article, the matter wave group velocity is also just a velocity, not a velocity of matter.  How does Shawyer get work done, when all he is using is a velocity on which to hang his theory?

The velocity affects the momentum felt at the end caps. The waveguide essentially squeezes the wave group, stretching it out, so that it simply take longer to complete it's interaction with the end cap at one end than the other. This changes the actual momentum imparted upon the cap. One end has a shorter wavegroup, the other has a longer wavegroup (though the frequency is the same). Thus the momentum difference.

One thing I am struggling with is the time causality of the recoil reaction of the engine.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 09:41 pm
And when I looked later the Onion Drive's home page
http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/oniondrive/onion.htm
on the botton of the site was written something about the Schauberger's "Repulsine" and the Searl levity disc. Both of the crafts - are they a deception? Somewhere I've read that the IGV has been tested by some Air Force guys back in the 1970s. Was it realy airborne?

Scahauberger was made famous by Nick Cook's "Hunt for Zero Point" and Searl has been running a con for more years than anyone can count.  He's even been locked up for it in the past.  It's all garbage.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/14/2009 10:08 pm
Ok, now let's get back to the real science.


The MLT accelerates constantly at 1 g. It nearly equals the 'sublight' engines of Enterprise. But what about rapid accelerations? I guess in future it can be upgraded with more sophisticated tech in order to make quick jumps without crush the crew. Like inertial dampers.

(http://www.orbitalvector.com/FTL/Warp%20Drives/Warp.jpg)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/14/2009 11:57 pm
Sith, given any particular amount of force generated by any particular MLT or UFG, when you divide that force by the mass of the spacecraft, you will get the acceleration.  1 gee acceleration is enough to cause something to float.  You need more force/mass to get it to climb out of the Earth's gravity well.

You're confusing Paul March's illustration of the "one gee solution" where he was showing what spacecraft can do if they can continuously accelerate at one Earth gee, with what we can currently do.  We're not generating anything like that amount of thrust.

Right now, all M-E thrusters have a low enough thrust that when you divide them by their weight, they cannot float.  And that doesn't include the rest of a spacecraft.  So, you're a little ahead of us all here but I do appreciate your enthusiasm.  :-)

F=MA   ::waves hand::
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 05/15/2009 03:05 am
Sith:

The nuclear bomb based Project Orion propulsion approach had plenty power, but its Isp was "only" around 10,000 seconds.  The worst MLT on the other hand has an equivalent Isp measured in the tera-seconds and it works rapidly up from there as the delivered thrust increases. 


THey said "onion" not "orion"
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/15/2009 04:07 am
I have been studying Mahood's thesis on and off over the last several weeks.  He admits that the ORNL refutation of his experimental work has some validity, but insists that further experimentation will validate his results.  Could someone post a more recent PDF of Mahood and Woodward's math and experimental work?

Mahood's math is gnarly for me, but I'm working thru the equations in his thesis appendix one by one, in case anybody is wondering, or even cares.

However, thrust efficiency is a major stumbling block, if the current (1999) readings are taken as accurate.  If my tentative suggestion of newtons per watt as a unit of measure is acceptable, the power supply for such a thruster would be distressingly large for the amount of thrust generated.

I haven't read that paper so I can't really comment. However the thrust efficiency is really a function of how cleanly you can shove the masses around. If you had a Bose-Einstein Condensate or some kind of singularity, or a bunch of Higgs bosons, then it might be much easier. But we're doing with squishy ordinary matter through conventional electrical systems.

Quote
In addition, he is ignoring local gravitational effects, such as the planet Earth, in favor of distant gravitational effects, which are several orders of magnitude smaller. I don't understand the derivation of his justification for this.

This may help (somewhat):
http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/mach.pr.html

Mach treats inertia as a result of the overall G-field created by all mass in the universe. I don't know about the tensor treatment he uses, but basically I would say it equates to gravitational potential. What we see as gravitational potential here on Earth is merely one-sided inertia. I need 5kJ to raise object x by 5m. With inertia, it equates to a relative velocity since in a non-Euclidean universe all vectors and distances sum to zero. Somebody hit me if I'm off track here.

Quote
Further, the thesis offers no insight as to what I understand to be the tapping of some other energy source to provide momentum.  This has to do mass fluctuations in excess of 100%, so there seems to be more recent math which I would appreciate reviewing.

The resultant energy is the relative change in velocity of the rest of the Universe. Just like a planet slows marginally from a gravity slingshot of a probe.

Quote
Finally,  the mass fluctuations of the Ti ion appear to take place at non-relativistic speeds.  What is the math behind this assertion?

There is no real mass fluctuation. The G-field simply hasn't reacted to the fact that the object has moved. Pointing to an empty array, to use a programming analogy. So the forces pointing back to where the object was are now acting on empty space. Kind of like steering for the last shot, in naval terms.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/15/2009 04:08 am
What about the Onion Drive? I saw it's theory in the aiaa presentation 2008.

http://www.aiaa-la.org/flyers/Adv%20Space%20Propulsion%20for%20Interstellar%20Travel%20-%20GMeholic%20042408.pdf

Slide 34/55


Is it equal to the MLT thruster?

Like Camelot, it is a silly place. Let us not go there.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/15/2009 06:41 am
About the MLT drive - for example it works several days in space, at 1g, without stopping, but suddenly it stops. Would the craft "drop out of warp" or the speed will remain the same to the point it stoped?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Pittsburgh on 05/15/2009 06:59 am
About the MLT drive - for example it works several days in space, at 1g, without stopping, but suddenly it stops. Would the craft "drop out of warp" or the speed will remain the same to the point it stoped?

Go back a few posts and take a look at F=ma.

If the drive stops working, no more acceleration.  By definition, that means that it will continue on at the same speed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/15/2009 03:35 pm
And 'red matter'???
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/15/2009 09:31 pm
What about the Onion Drive? I saw it's theory in the aiaa presentation 2008.

http://www.aiaa-la.org/flyers/Adv%20Space%20Propulsion%20for%20Interstellar%20Travel%20-%20GMeholic%20042408.pdf

Slide 34/55


Is it equal to the MLT thruster?

Folks:

Sorry about seeing "Orion" when you were all talking about the "Onion" drive.  It looks like I need to get my reading glasses changed again. :(

Next comment is on the issue on if the MLT could be used to implement a warp drive instead of "just" a G/I based impulse drive only capabile of sublight speeds.  The answer to this question is sitting in the Mach-Effect (M-E) equation's wormhole term when it is driven by the impulse term into its always negative mass mode as experimentally demonstrated in Woodward's 2002 IIT paper, with the results appended below. 

Now it has been shown by several researchers like Dr. Richard Obousy (Baylor U.) and Dr. Harold White (Rice U.) that all one needs to create a Alcubierre warp bubble around the starship in a GRT/string theory based universe is a negative mass energy differential, (An average matter density less than the rest mass of the dielectric in question.), instead of a less than zero gravinertial mass concentration previously thought to be required, but assembled in the appropriate geometric configuration like a torus .  This greater than zero, but less than the rest mass of the M-E excited dielectric state has already been demonstrated by Woodward in a PZT stack and increasing this into a toroidal configuration is almost trivial.  However maintaining a toroidal dielectric ring at a particular lower delta mass set point will still be a bit of a control engineering challenge.

A simple experiment to verify this conjecture is to shoot a laser down a path that is offset from the center bore of an MLT tours and note whether the laser beam is deflected as it passes through the asymmetric spacetime distortions created by the MLT when it’s driven into a continuous reduced mass state like those found in Woodard’s 2002 experimental results.  If it does, we can then start planning on how we can implement a warp drive to any-where and/or any-when in this universe or any of the other universes in the string theory's multi-verse.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cgrunska on 05/15/2009 10:04 pm
and how much would this experiment cost?

also, this thread is making my head hurt
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/15/2009 10:19 pm
If we had to come up from scratch, probably around ~$10k or for parts.  The tricky thing in this experiment is designing the control loop for maintaining the delta mass reduction in the PZT ring as this high-k dielectric heats up and expands.  We would also have to develop a cooling loop design to keep it from going over its Curie temperature of ~350C. 

BTW, I just talked with Dr. White and he reminded me that what he had in mind for this experiment was shooting the laser down the bore scope of the PZT ring that forms a leg of a Michelson/Morley (M&M) interferometer.  What his prediction indicate is that the phase of the laser light passing through the M-E induced spacetime distortion in the PZT ring would change in reference to the laser beam passing through the flat spacetime outside the PZT ring in the same way as the moving aether was suppose to affect the light beam in the M&M tests.   

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

BTW, sorry about your head hurting, but if this stuff was easy, it would have been accomplished already. :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/15/2009 10:27 pm
You don't need an interferometer and you don't have to cool the PZT.  There's no reason to try to run in stasis unless you want to measure the distortion as opposed to simply confirm it.  The simplified version, confirmation alone;  any national lab could do this experiment in a single day with items on hand.

The real question is, even given a space-time disturbance, would a laser beam emerge in such a way as to clearly show the disturbance?  I'm not sure that's a given--just as the ZPF folks say about M-M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cgrunska on 05/15/2009 10:31 pm
So for 10k, we might be able to determine if M-E travel works?

that's an easy decision to make for funding...
How come it hasn't received funding as of yet to perform?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/15/2009 10:49 pm
What his prediction indicate is that the phase of the laser light passing through the M-E induced spacetime distortion in the PZT ring would change in reference to the laser beam passing through the flat spacetime outside the PZT ring in the same way as the moving aether was suppose to affect the light beam in the M&M tests.   

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
The aether is known today in the quantum mechanics as quantum foam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

And what if the same M&M experiment is conducted now, but as a rotational version (using M-E distortions) instead of the old linear one? Would then be any aether detected? Is that his idea?

-=-=-=-=-=

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam)
Too much energy required...

(http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/274/powerx.jpg)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/16/2009 03:15 pm
"And what if the same M&M experiment is conducted now, but as a rotational version (using M-E distortions) instead of the old linear one? Would then be any aether detected? Is that his idea?"

No.  He's saying that given MLT's and UFG's distort space-time when they create gravinertial flux, one ought to be able to observe this with a laser.  It's got very little to do with M-M except that the two experiments have some protocols in common.

If one were to try to run in stasis over an extended period of time then running in vacuum would be advisable.  That would escalate the costs some.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/17/2009 12:45 am
What his prediction indicate is that the phase of the laser light passing through the M-E induced spacetime distortion in the PZT ring would change in reference to the laser beam passing through the flat spacetime outside the PZT ring in the same way as the moving aether was suppose to affect the light beam in the M&M tests.   

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
The aether is known today in the quantum mechanics as quantum foam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

And what if the same M&M experiment is conducted now, but as a rotational version (using M-E distortions) instead of the old linear one? Would then be any aether detected? Is that his idea?

-=-=-=-=-=

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam)
Too much energy required...

(http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/274/powerx.jpg)

Subsequent papers have reduced that requirement, but it's still tremendous. The biggest problem is causal disconnect with the surroundings. - In other words, the metric distortion must travel faster than the speed of light. This can be overcome with a "warp corridor" set up at sublight speeds but then there are also causality problems that way.

If the Mach theory is correct, then we don't have to worry about causal disconnect as the metric bubble distortion propagates faster than light anyway (or forwards and backwards in time which amounts to the same thing).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/17/2009 12:51 am
I should mention that I proposed this same thing three years ago (which Sonny was copied to) but there was no agreement whether the laser wouldn't dislocate in one direction upon entering the distortion, and then relocate upon exiting the distortion.  This is the same problem we have with the M-M experiment as described by ZPF folks.

I don't see it leading to an unassailable conclusion.

In any case, aiming the beam down the center of the distortion is the wrong way to go.  You need to go off normal to get evidence of a distortion.

And no.  According to Dr. Woodward's theory, and all GR theorists; all gravitic consequences propagate at c.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/17/2009 01:34 am
Quote
And no.  According to Dr. Woodward's theory, and all GR theorists; all gravitic consequences propagate at c.

Well then, no warp drive. Unless the metric distortion propagates faster than c, it will be a sub-light warp drive only...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/17/2009 02:50 am
You're confusing the divergent facts here.  Matter cannot move past c through space-time.  Space-time can move at any arbitrarily high speed through space-time.  That's what "warp" is all about!   :-)  I guess I shouldn't use the term "gravitic consequences."  That is misleading and of course, you are correct.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/17/2009 02:32 pm
All we have to do is warp space-time....

Arrrgh.

All we have to do is launch a chemical rocket to the Moon.  Sorry, had to vent.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/18/2009 10:36 pm
Sorry I missed some of your questions, John.  I hope Paul was able to answer your more technical ones.  As to this:

"Finally,  the mass fluctuations of the Ti ion appear to take place at non-relativistic speeds.  What is the math behind this assertion?"

The forces in MLT's and UFG's to date do not generate relativistic speeds in the Titanium ions.  If you look at the math you'll see this.  But more importantly, the fluctuation doesn't occur in the Ti ion.  It occurs in the squishy bonds between the Ti ion and its lattice.  This is why we finally realized after 2 years study on the MLT that it won't perform as hoped (though it does perform) because we're not accelerating the entire lattice with an MLT.  We need "bulk acceleration" which is why Jim moved from MLT research, to the rotator research and will be headed back to UFG research in the Fall.  The UFG provides bulk acceleration and the past UFG results were much better than the MLT research results from Fullerton.  Paul March's MLT experiments do need to be considered separately since he was working inside wormhole territory.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/19/2009 04:16 am
GI-Thruster:

"But more importantly, the fluctuation doesn't occur in the Ti ion.  It occurs in the squishy bonds between the Ti ion and its lattice.  This is why we finally realized after 2 years study on the MLT that it won't perform as hoped (though it does perform) because we're not accelerating the entire lattice with an MLT."

Come again?  The NET vxB forces do bulk accelerate the cap rings in question because the vxB force accelerate both the positive and negative ions in the dielectric in the same direction.  However, their acceleration levels at the power levels and frequency used by Woodward yields bulk accelerations levels on the order of less than 1.0 gee, whereas it appears what's needed for robust thrust outputs is bulk accelerations on the order of hundreds if not thousands of gees.  Going to higher power levels and/or higher frequencies can help generate those bulk acceleration levels in the MLTs.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/19/2009 03:10 pm
Star-Drive, agreed.  I was speaking only of research outside wormhole territory.  Obviously, it's easier to get the necessary accelerations working at higher frequency.  I'm all for that.  :-)  I'm just saying, given Jim's commitment to avoid wormhole territory, the UFG makes more sense as it's more prone to create these accelerations in the kHz range.  (Though personally, I'd sure like to see Jim run the 200 kHz MLT's at 200 kHz.  Who knows what we might learn?)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 05/20/2009 05:19 am
<snip>
In blazotron’s analysis of the theory paper, he states: “Then [Shawyer] states, completely without support, that the force imparted by a wave with group velocity vg is 2nhfA*(vg/c).  Nowhere in the text is it explained why we should be using the group velocity of the wave to calculate force.”  I think blazeotron is somewhat incorrect in stating where in the text is this explained.  The author alludes to:

CULLEN A.L. ‘Absolute Power Measurements at Microwave Frequencies’ IEE proceedings Vol 99 Part IV 1952

as explaining where he gets the above derivation.  But this is not an actual explanation, so semantically I guess, blazotron is right!

Please post Cullen’s paper on this forum.  A simple web search will not provide this paper online.

My impression was that the reference to that paper was in regards to the derivation of the radiation pressure.  Looking at it again, it seems a little ambiguous to me which he is referring to.  That article is hard to get, but I put a request in to the library here to pull the journals from the remote storage they are located in now.  Hopefully I will have them to post before I leave for the expedition.

Well I ran out of time to scan and post these before I left, but now that I am back, here they are.  Thanks to John Fornaro for the PDF version of the images I supplied.

[This post has been edited to replace the images with the new PDF, and the following two posts (which contained additional pages of images) have been deleted as everything is now contained in this post.]
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 05/20/2009 02:34 pm
More on Shawyer:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf

Note how Shawyer's "Theory" original paper:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf

Differs from the "Theory" paper now on his website:
http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/20/2009 04:22 pm
Interesting to see the variations in the two versions of Shawyer's theory.  The refutation paper doesn't use much math, but I think it is correct graphically.  It basically confirms what we know to be true:  a truncated conical wastebasket, closed at each end, filled with bouncing cannonballs will not move anywhere, unless the cannonballs somehow reduce their mass consistently in one direction.

On the other hand, I don't care for the dismissive language of the refutation.  I like the Wiki idea of writing in neutral.

Having gone thru Cullen's paper quickly, on page 102, is an equation which closely resembles the derivation that Shawyer mentions in his theory paper, but it is not exactly replicated in Shawyer's work.  I haven't yet figured out what steps in this equation are the ones that Shawyer has omitted, but there is another thing.  Cullen is measuring microwave power;  it is still not at all clear how Shawyer relates group velocity of a wave front with the velocity of an accelerating mass in the F-ma equation.

Edited 05-22-09:  correct pagination of citations not important.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/20/2009 04:32 pm
Anything new in the Tachyon theory? Any recent advancement?


More on Shawyer:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf
This is from 2006. It's old!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 05/20/2009 05:32 pm
For a microwave cavity, the wavelength in free space over the group wavelength is equal to the group velocity over the free space velocity (Vg/C). Plug that into Cullen's eq 15 and you get Shawyer's force equation.

About the shawyerfraud.pdf being "old", if you try to say that 2+2=6 and I rebut that 2+2=4, I'm using an explanation that's thousands of years old. Is it invalid???

Regardless, Newton will win in the end. This contraption will fail to produce any results.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 05/20/2009 05:48 pm
My impression upon studying the paper, having read the previous rebuttal and noted how Shawyer had changed his "theory paper," is that he dug for some more complicated explanation that is harder to decipher where he went wrong.  When it became obvious that his old explanation of pressures on differing end plate areas was causing a new force was completely garbage, he obfuscated the issue with waveguides, relativity, and a reference to a paper that is damned near impossible to get.  I am not an expert in the field, but I feel pretty sure that the issue is still there, just hidden better now, and that, as mikegi says, Newton will eventually win.  I believe he has taken an equation out of context in his derivation.  Hopefully I will have time to pin it down and get back in the near future with more.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/20/2009 05:56 pm
I've said about all I want to with regards Shawyer but I should mention again that Dr. Harold White at JSC has an alternate explanation of why the Shawyer thruster ought to produce thrust.  It's based upon ZPF theory of which I am no proponent but I think it's just being fair to say that if the thruster did produce thrust, this would in no way verify Shawyer's maths.  He'd still be just as wrong.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/20/2009 07:51 pm
Having these slightly different versions of papers is confusing to me.  I don't quite have the math skills to properly asses all the jumps in Shawyer's equations.  Plus, which one do you believe?

Arrgh.

The site:
http://www.rexresearch.com/shawyer/shawyer.htm
has a bit more info on Shawyer, including a reference to the fraud paper mentioned above:

Shawyer's response:
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/20/2009 08:45 pm
Arrgg.  Hit the wrong button.

Shawyer's response:

"The momentum exchange is between the electromagnetic wave and the engine, which is attached to the spacecraft. As the engine accelerates, momentum is lost by the electromagnetic wave and gained by the spacecraft, thus satisfying the conservation of momentum. In this process, energy is lost within the resonator, thus satisfying the conservation of energy.

"The emdrive concept is clearly difficult to comprehend without a rigorous study of the theory paper, which is available via emdrive.com or the New Scientist website. This paper, which has been subjected to a long and detailed review process by industry and government experts, derives two equations: the static thrust equation and the dynamic thrust equation.

"The law of the conservation of momentum is the basis of the static thrust equation, the law of the conservation of energy is the basis of the dynamic thrust equation. Provided these two fundamental laws of physics are satisfied, there is no reason why the forces inside the resonator should sum to zero.

"The equations used to calculate the guide wavelengths in the static thrust equation are very non-linear. This is exploited in the design of the resonator to maximise the ratio of end plate forces, while minimising the axial component of the side wall force. This results in a net force that produces motion in accordance with Newton’s laws."

...somehow doesn't seem convicing.

Then, someone named Penny Gruber has a fairly recent (2008) comment:

"Penny Gruber ( 20:23, 29 September 2008 (PDT) --  AFAIK COM has to apply in any inertial frame of reference. Assuming that the microwave cavity is well sealed as it must be for the high Q's Shawyer's system needs, then no microwaves escape. The magnetron, the waveguide to the cavity, the cavity and all the waves that bounce around inside of it are intrinsically in the same frame of reference, with no ejected mass or energy other than heating from the dielectric and conduction losses of the cavity materials. The thruster ejects nothing and so by COM cannot experience any accelerating force in an external FOR."

Then there's  a bunch of G.B. patents listed.  I don't think a patent really "proves" any science.  It just proves that you were the first person to describe a device.  Whether it works or not is up to the patentee to prove.

The Wiki discussion under the "EmDrive" heading nominates the article for deletion in 2006, but the discussion gained no consensus.  BTW, for Wiki to think that "truth" is determined by consensus is incorrect, but that's really a tirade for another thread.

The Wiki discussion, however, makes a number of arguments from authority, paricularly the "New Scientist" magazine.  One of the objectors raises the issue where I lost Shawyer:  he interchanges the v of a particle with the vg of a group velocity.  One of the editors compares Shawyer's device with a Mexican jumping bean!  One of the editors offers this site:

http://www.rocketeers.co.uk/?q=node/330

where Shawyer makes a demonstration.  The "New Scientist" article apparently refers to a demonstration of the device, but I haven't seen the video.  There's a reference to the biefield Brown effect, which I know nothing about, but which the editor thinks it has to do with the EmDrive.  Apparently there's some research being done at Northwestern Polytechnical University by a fella named Yang Juan.  The last editor to address the subject was in September 2008, and the first was in October of 2006.

The Wiki article is noted as a "Class-C article of low importance."

If I tagged it correctly, this is a video of the EmDrive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3_aRiUXs

Whew.  That was exciting.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/20/2009 09:24 pm
Discuss EmDrive here pls.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14423.0

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/20/2009 09:43 pm
". . .There's a reference to the biefield Brown effect, which I know nothing about. . ."

It's a bad joke.  An inefficient ion thruster that does not work as reported.  Easiest way to tell is put it in a box.  The ions accelerated by the potential difference in the design can't get out of the box and the thruster doesn't work at all.  Was shown not to work many years ago.  You can ignore it as junk science.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/20/2009 11:15 pm
". . .There's a reference to the biefield Brown effect, which I know nothing about. . ."

It's a bad joke.  An inefficient ion thruster that does not work as reported.  Easiest way to tell is put it in a box.  The ions accelerated by the potential difference in the design can't get out of the box and the thruster doesn't work at all.  Was shown not to work many years ago.  You can ignore it as junk science.
I don't wanna talk about TT Brown, but this video is interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp4hygoD3RU&feature=channel_page


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/21/2009 12:40 pm
The EmDrive is a propellantless propulsion scheme cooked up by Shawyer, and was introduced on this thread some time ago.  There is a bit of chatter here about the math for this theory from about a month ago, and I guess, we're trying to settle the issue to the extent that we can.  I got sidetracked yesterday trying to see how many other people are studying the work of Shawyer, thought I'd post a few of my findings.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/22/2009 06:07 am
G/I, Star-Drive,

Instead of using H2 fuel cells for the MLT drive, could it be done with simple Lithium-ion batteries??
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/22/2009 08:03 pm
Any electrical source can be used to drive an MLT or UFG.  The reason Paul chose GM fuel cells for his WarpStar illustration is that for that application, flying to the Moon and back on a single charge; batteries do not have a high enough energy density.  Fission would not work in such a small craft.  We're still waiting on Fusion.  BLP reactors are still under investigation though, it appears using them instead of a fuel cell would give a WarpStar an exponential extension in range, perhaps enough for travel to Mars.

Given a 1 N/W M-E thruster like what is the baseline assumption for the WarpStar, one might fly to LEO on batteries but not much further and probably have to return hypersonic with wings and tiles.  We talked about this when he was writing the paper but I don't remember all the details.  The key thing to get from this though is that each of these options for storing or generating electrical power have different energy densities, meaning a set amount of energy/mass; so not all of them can accomplish the same things.  Even the best, most cutting edge batteries cannot fly a 1 N/W WarpStar to the Moon and back.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/23/2009 08:04 pm
Any electrical source can be used to drive an MLT or UFG.  The reason Paul chose GM fuel cells for his WarpStar illustration is that for that application, flying to the Moon and back on a single charge; batteries do not have a high enough energy density.  Fission would not work in such a small craft.  We're still waiting on Fusion.  BLP reactors are still under investigation though, it appears using them instead of a fuel cell would give a WarpStar an exponential extension in range, perhaps enough for travel to Mars.

Given a 1 N/W M-E thruster like what is the baseline assumption for the WarpStar, one might fly to LEO on batteries but not much further and probably have to return hypersonic with wings and tiles.  We talked about this when he was writing the paper but I don't remember all the details.  The key thing to get from this though is that each of these options for storing or generating electrical power have different energy densities, meaning a set amount of energy/mass; so not all of them can accomplish the same things.  Even the best, most cutting edge batteries cannot fly a 1 N/W WarpStar to the Moon and back.

G/I Thruster & Sith:

The Li-ion battery case for WarpStar-I design is given in the attached slide.  As you will note, assuming the highest ~200 W-hr/kg specific energy density for Li-ion cells, and 1.0 N/W MLTs, we can easily go from the ground, up to geosynchronous orbit, and then back to the ground on one charge even with the final WarpStar-I’s mass of 26,500 kg.  However, the Moon mission doesn’t quite make it using even this high end Li-ion energy density.  You would have to use the still unproven Li-Sulphur batteries or EEStor’s Cap-Battery with their promises of 400-to-600 W-hr/kg energy density to make it to the Moon and back, and your energy reserves would be reduced as compared to the LOX/hydrogen fuel cell’s system energy density of ~1.0 kW/kg.  In other words, the flight to the Moon and back would be doable with the ~500 W-hr/kg Li-S or EEStor batteries, but we would just have to be a lot more vehicle mass conscious than we would when using fuel cells with the payback being lower production and operational costs.

See: http://www.sionpower.com/technology.html
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/23/2009 09:05 pm
From this thread it is beginning to sound like the propellant depots will have to sell  batteries.  Although swap and recharge may work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 05/23/2009 09:35 pm
Pff.  If you can go to Earth escape with less than a quarter of the available battery power, you can darn well go to the moon.  Just not without coasting for a couple of days.

Certainly the high-thrust >1g solution makes better copy...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/23/2009 09:47 pm
Yes well, that's my bad.  ;-)  I convinced Paul to pursue the 1 gee solution, meaning constant acceleration from start to finish; because this is part of the paradigm change one is looking at when one looks at electric spacecraft.  Boost and glide is much of what makes space travel not quick and not convenient.  4 days instead of 4 hours.  And after all, the 1 N/W figure though seemingly sensible is somewhat arbitrary.  The point in the WarpStar illustration was not to say "hey look what we can do!" so much as to say "hey look at what space travel could be like!"  I fought for the "safe, quick, convenient, economical" qualification because that's what I believe is necessary for a "golden age of human spaceflight."

But you're right of course.  One could fly from Earth to the Moon and back with 1 N/M MLT's and far less available energy if one were willing to boost and glide.  Then again, one can get around town on a bike with less energy that way.  What do commuter bike riders choose to do?  They pedal all the time because that's quick and convenient.

Paul's WarpStar paper is full of these sorts of practicalities.  For instance, you'll find the notion designs around going fast in space and slow in atmo.  No need for hypersonic re-entries and these cause all sorts of maintenance issues.

This is all simple practicality, modeling future spaceflight to operate much like modern day air travel.  That is after all what works safe, quick, convenient and economical.

Have you read Paul's paper?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 05/23/2009 10:33 pm
I have not read the paper.  (Or have I?  Okay, I have not read the paper recently.)  I'm no fan of coasting, but Star-Drive seemed to be giving people the impression that the moon trip wasn't possible at all with batteries, and it is.

Batteries.  To the moon.  That's almost as much of a paradigm shift as the fuel-cell-powered 4-hour high-thrust trajectory.

Almost.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/24/2009 12:41 am
Personally I'd rather see batteries or better, caps.  If you can recharge a spacecraft in a few minutes hooked to some sort of generator, then you have added a whole new level of utility.  Imagine robotic MLT freighters flying cargo to LEO round trip in a couple hours, recharging and flying again, constant transport.  If you're just moving mass, you can fly at very high gee's.

We also talked about fission or fusion powered craft for transport to places like Titan.  If you build something like a Skycrane, that has exterior carriage and can fly a large payload out at 1-2 gees, then return at 10+ gees, you cut the down time, the time the system is not producing to a small fraction.  Dispatchers of all sorts try to do this by managing return trips but they don't generally get to have a truck, taxi or bus make a return trip in 1/10 the time.  All these sorts of things go to what can make a future system economical.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/24/2009 03:28 am
Providing it is out of sight you can have a nuclear reactor on the ground to recharge your rocket.  In space solar power can recharge the capacitors until about the asteroid belt.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/26/2009 05:45 pm
I have not read the paper.  (Or have I?  Okay, I have not read the paper recently.)  I'm no fan of coasting, but Star-Drive seemed to be giving people the impression that the moon trip wasn't possible at all with batteries, and it is.

Batteries.  To the moon.  That's almost as much of a paradigm shift as the fuel-cell-powered 4-hour high-thrust trajectory.

Almost.

93143:

Sorry for making you think that it was impossible.  Yes, with 1.0 N/W G/I thrusters this notional WarpStar-I vehicle design could make it to the Moon and back using only Li-ion batteries.  However, to do so you would have to reduce your average acceleration levels from 1.0 gee down to 1/5 gee to maintain the mission energy reserves assumed in the Warpstar-1 paper.  Of course you could also do the burn and coast approach like rockets use, but why bother?  I like my coffee to stay put when I put it down on the dashboard.  :)

BTW, find attached the WaprStar-1 paper in question and my latest experimental MLT-2009 test article at approximately it's 85% completion point reached over the weekend.  I hope to be testing it by the end of next month.  Predicted thrust levels for this ~175 gram test article using Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation is approximately 52.0 Newton with 100W of input power at 146 MHz, which should generate a cap-ring voltage of ~5,500V-p if my RF loss models are correct.  Using Dr. White's QVF/MHD model for this same test article, under the same operating conditions, the thrust prediction is only ~0.5 gram force (~5.0 milli-Newton).  It should be an interesting test either way...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/26/2009 06:53 pm
Star-Drive, that looks awesome!!! (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)

What are these flat coils on the top?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/26/2009 10:09 pm
Sith:

The flat copper coils on top of the white cylinder are eight, one-turn coils clocked every 45 degrees around the MLT's torus that are wired in parallel and form the Lorentz vxB B-field coil assembly for the MLT.  It turned out that configuration yielded the highest peak voltage for the MLT's cap-ring for a given 146 MHz ac input power.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: bpb3 on 05/27/2009 09:23 pm
Star Drive:  You wrote "Predicted thrust levels for this ~175 gram test article using Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation is approximately 52.0 Newton with 100W of input power at 146 MHz".    Is that 52.0 Newtons for real?  If so then you are halfway to the 1 Newton/Watt needed for the Warp Star.  I wax excited.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/27/2009 10:24 pm
bpb3:

As G/I thruster just reminded me, this 52N prediction is based on an excel tool that linearized the M-E wormhole term, which can only be solved accurately by numerical integration, which none of us have figured out how to do yet, so our mileage may vary and vary greatly when it comes to the real deal.   I guess I should not have predicted any anticipated thrust levels publically at this stage of our ignorance and just reported on the actual results when it comes along in a few weeks.  Time will tell.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 05/28/2009 12:54 am
Star Drive:  You wrote "Predicted thrust levels for this ~175 gram test article using Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation is approximately 52.0 Newton with 100W of input power at 146 MHz".    Is that 52.0 Newtons for real?  If so then you are halfway to the 1 Newton/Watt needed for the Warp Star.  I wax excited.

Think of it on a logarithm scale, with 1 Newton per 150 MW as your base (for the thrust from a solar sail, the current best propellantless system). If Woodward can achieve that, he is for all practical purposes there.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/28/2009 06:49 pm
Yes well, this isn't Woodward's prediction.  Apart from the fact Woodward's derivation cannot legitimately be used to make thrust predictions inside wormhole territory, it is also true that the mathematical tool Paul is using to get this thrust number is not up to date.  It was constructed by Andrew Palfreyman before Jim realized the necessity of bulk acceleration in these thrusters.  Paul's current build likewise does not accommodate such acceleration so there is an excellent chance that if it works at all, it will produce very small thrusts.  So don't get your hopes up.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/28/2009 08:56 pm
inside wormhole territory
Sometimes I get my terms confused. When I see the word "wormhole" I always imagine a shortcut between 2 distant points in space, but instead of that the MLT creates a small fraction of twisted space-time (wormhole) just to get thrust out of it. That's a very witty move :)


it will produce very small thrusts.  So don't get your hopes up.
The question is how long could it sustain in a vacuum chamber. Any preparations for that kind of demonstration?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/28/2009 10:38 pm
Yes well, this isn't Woodward's prediction.  Apart from the fact Woodward's derivation cannot legitimately be used to make thrust predictions inside wormhole territory, it is also true that the mathematical tool Paul is using to get this thrust number is not up to date.  It was constructed by Andrew Palfreyman before Jim realized the necessity of bulk acceleration in these thrusters.  Paul's current build likewise does not accommodate such acceleration so there is an excellent chance that if it works at all, it will produce very small thrusts.  So don't get your hopes up.

G/I Thruster:

I never said that the noted M-E prediction tool was authored by Dr. Woodward.  And I have posted previously in this forum that this M-E predictive spreadsheet tool was coauthored with Andrew Palfyreman and myself in our STAIF-2006 paper, which is aviailable on the web, warts and all.  Whether you think it is applicable to an MLT operated where the wormhole term is excited is your take on this situation, but in the final analysis it is only knowable by experiment, which will soon be accomplished and reported on.

BTW, the MLT-2009 was designed from the get-go to accomodate the bulk acceleration conjecture by Nembo Buldrini.  In other words, this test article's Teflon cap-ring has electrical leads that will accomodate cyclic Z-axis motions and the cap-ring is potted in a silicone material that will act as both a suspention spring and an electrical insulator as shown in the attached slide.  Again only experimental data will tell us whether this blend of electric, magnetic, and mechancial design compromises used to build this test article will be an MLT winner or a dud. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danny Dot on 05/28/2009 10:43 pm
Good luck to you guys.  I hope I am wrong that this thing violates the laws of physics.  If you are right we will not only have great rocket motor, you will all get Nobel Prizes.

I like you philosophy that the proof is in building and testing.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/29/2009 03:59 am
Danny:

Since Dr. Woodward's Mach-Effect derivation for these mass fluctuations is Lorentz Invariant, i.e. it is a 4D spacetime derivation that is true in all frames of reference per the requirements of Einstein's General Relativity Theory (GRT), it automatically observes all conservations laws including the conservation of energy and momentum.  Where people get confused on this stuff is drawing their thermodynamics systems box locally just around the M-E device in question, whereas it has to be drawn around the causally connected universe where the G/I field generators reside.  Per the latest cosmological data, that means a radius of 13.7 billion light years from the local frame.  In other words when a G/I driven spaceship accelerates, the rest of the universe slows down, or if you prefer, the rest of the universe gets just a little bit colder.

Thanks much for the encouraging words and data is what we are short on.  However, doing this kind of bleeding edge research work after hours is getting to be a bit of a chore.   Let’s hope we make some progress in the near future…
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danny Dot on 05/29/2009 04:31 am
Danny:

Since Dr. Woodward's Mach-Effect derivation for these mass fluctuations is Lorentz Invariant, i.e. it is a 4D spacetime derivation that is true in all frames of reference per the requirements of Einstein's General Relativity Theory (GRT), it automatically observes all conservations laws including the conservation of energy and momentum.  Where people get confused on this stuff is drawing their thermodynamics systems box locally just around the M-E device in question, whereas it has to be drawn around the causally connected universe where the G/I field generators reside.  Per the latest cosmological data, that means a radius of 13.7 billion light years from the local frame.  In other words when a G/I driven spaceship accelerates, the rest of the universe slows down, or if you prefer, the rest of the universe gets just a little bit colder.

Thanks much for the encouraging words and data is what we are short on.  However, doing this kind of bleeding edge research work after hours is getting to be a bit of a chore.   Let’s hope we make some progress in the near future…


The law I am worried about is the conservation of linear momentum.  If this thruster changes the linear momentum of the vehicle it is attached to, them some other object in the universe must have a change of momentum in the opposite direction.  What is this something?  The whole universe "slowing down" or getting colder doesn't conserve linear momentum.  Momentum is a vector, not a scalar.  If the vehicle accelerates to the right the whole universe must accelerate to the left.  Getting colder is NOT an acceleration to the left.

Like I said I truly hope I am wrong or simply don't understand.  If this thing works I can tell my grand kids I had the honor to chat with the people that changed the universe before they were born.

Danny Deger
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/29/2009 04:36 am


The law I am worried about is the conservation of linear momentum.  If this thruster changes the linear momentum of the vehicle it is attached to, them some other object in the universe must have a change of momentum in the opposite direction.  What is this something?

Danny Deger
[/quote]

It's literally everything else but chiefly, the most distant matter or Far Off Active Matter (FOAM), as per Mach's Principle.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/29/2009 11:52 am


The law I am worried about is the conservation of linear momentum.  If this thruster changes the linear momentum of the vehicle it is attached to, them some other object in the universe must have a change of momentum in the opposite direction.  What is this something?

Danny Deger

It's literally everything else but chiefly, the most distant matter or Far Off Active Matter (FOAM), as per Mach's Principle.
[/quote]

Danny & G/I Thruster:

Find attached a slide on this MLT linear momentum topic that I presented at the May 15, 2009 AIAA/Houston Technical Symposium here in Houston.  And yes, G/I thruster has the right of it.  When the MLT accelerates to the right, the rest of the causally conected universe accelerates to the left.  You won't notice it though because of the huge disparity in mass/energy between these two systems.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danny Dot on 05/29/2009 01:45 pm

snip

Find attached a slide on this MLT linear momentum topic that I presented at the May 15, 2009 AIAA/Houston Technical Symposium here in Houston.  And yes, G/I thruster has the right of it.  When the MLT accelerates to the right, the rest of the causally conected universe accelerates to the left.  You won't notice it though because of the huge disparity in mass/energy between these two systems.

Thanks for the post.  How well known is the G/I field and its effect on moving the rest of the universe?  Is this a new and yet very little tested phenomenon?

I can say without analysis I don't think I will notice the universe move when one of these thrusters moves a spacecraft to Mars.

Danny Deger

Danny Deger
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/29/2009 03:01 pm
Danny, the question you're asking can be restated as follows: "what evidence do we have that Mach's Principle is correct?" since it is entirely Mach's Principle that stipulates this relationship.  Jim Woodward's work was to bring Mach and Einstein together but the simplest way to answer your question is to look at Mach.

I'm not aware of any experiments to demonstrate Mach's Principle except those to Jim Woodward over the last decade or so, and since we are all in effect wondering about the theoretical basis for Jim's work, it doesn't serve to look at his lab work for an answer.  Instead, I would recommend approaching the theoretical question of the validity of Mach's Principle through a theoretical approach.  I think you'll find this text is truly excellent:

http://www.amazon.com/Machs-Principle-Newtons-Quantum-Einstein/dp/0817638237/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243608836&sr=8-1

However, if indeed you want to hold out for evidence that Mach's Principle is true, I would then say that literally ALL of Jim Woodward's experiments over the years demonstrate evidence for this Principle.  Jim's thrusters cannot work unless Mach was and is correct.

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 05/29/2009 03:14 pm
inside wormhole territory
Sometimes I get my terms confused. When I see the word "wormhole" I always imagine a shortcut between 2 distant points in space, but instead of that the MLT creates a small fraction of twisted space-time (wormhole) just to get thrust out of it. That's a very witty move :)


it will produce very small thrusts.  So don't get your hopes up.
The question is how long could it sustain in a vacuum chamber. Any preparations for that kind of demonstration?

Sith, the term "wormhole territory" used in Jim Woodward's work (as well as that of guys like Paul March of course!) reflects the idea of mass fluctuating to the point that it becomes negative.  Once matter has a negative mass, even if only transiently; then it is what we call "exotic matter" and can be used to build warp drives and traversable wormholes.  This is why we call this transition from normal mass with normal inertia, to exotic matter with negative inertia by the name "wormhole boundary" and the place where exotic matter has negative inertia "wormhole territory."  This is not the same as claiming to build a wormhole.  I don't know anyone who has made such a claim, certainly not Jim Woodward.

What you're reading and confusing with this is that Jim is working outside wormhole territory, meaning he is fluctuating the mass less than 100% or dm<m and that Paul March is working within wormhole territory where the fluctuation is more than 100% or dm>m.  This is just the common use of the term "wormhole" when dealing with this work.

Jim always works in a vacuum chamber as this is the only way to isolate spurious thrust sources like ion wind and thermal effects when dealing with very small thrusts.  Paul is looking for much larger thrusts so it may turn out he doesn't need vacuum at all.  Lets hope so.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/29/2009 03:34 pm
When the MLT accelerates to the right, the rest of the causally conected universe accelerates to the left.  You won't notice it though because of the huge disparity in mass/energy between these two systems.
What happens if there is more than one MLT ship and each one moves in a different direction? What happens then to the universe?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 05/29/2009 04:24 pm
Same thing that happens to the Earth when two cars drive in different directions.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/29/2009 04:30 pm

snip

Find attached a slide on this MLT linear momentum topic that I presented at the May 15, 2009 AIAA/Houston Technical Symposium here in Houston.  And yes, G/I thruster has the right of it.  When the MLT accelerates to the right, the rest of the causally conected universe accelerates to the left.  You won't notice it though because of the huge disparity in mass/energy between these two systems.

Thanks for the post.  How well known is the G/I field and its effect on moving the rest of the universe?  Is this a new and yet very little tested phenomenon?

I can say without analysis I don't think I will notice the universe move when one of these thrusters moves a spacecraft to Mars.

Danny Deger

Danny:

I’d have to say that the idea that the cosmological gravity field is the seat of inertia is not new, but very few professionals other than in the General Relativity Theory (GRT) community are familiar with it enough to be able to participate in it in a productive way.  So I guess I need to paint a quick history of where this all started for you.

The idea of the cosmological gravity field generated by the mostly distant mass/energy in the causally connected universe giving rise to inertial reaction forces was first posited by Ernst Mach in the late 1800s, being called later by Einstein as “Mach’s Principle.”  Albert Einstein then discussed the idea further with Mach during the time period between Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity paper and his 1915 General Relativity paper, and Einstein was quoted after 1915 as saying that “Mach’s Principle” was the best explanation for the property we call inertia. 

Not much was done with this gravity/inertia (gravinertial) field idea until the early 1950s where Dennis Sciama, (Steven Hawking’s grad advisor at Cambridge, UK), published a 1953 paper showing how Mach’s Principle could be shown to be the gravitational parallel to Michael Faraday’s electrical induction effect.  Sciama then demonstrated that the near instantaneous inertial reaction forces for all accelerating objects can be viewed as a GRT based  “inertial-induction effect” generated by the gravity based inertial radiation field created by the mostly distant cosmic mass-energy of the universe.  Then in 1975 Derek Raine showed that Sciama’s inertial-induction conjecture is correct in Einstein’s GRT for Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmologies, i.e., in a universe like our own.   

Dr. Woodward who has a PhD in the history of gravitational physics came along in the mid 1980s looking at all that had gone before in this inertial induction venue and started to play with the mathematical derivations surrounding Newton’s three laws of motion.  He found through this process that when the derivation for Newton’s three laws of motion were performed in GRT compliant 4D spacetime, i.e. in a Lorentz invariant way, he found that there were several transient mass terms in the second and third laws, (F=m*a and action=reaction), that indicated that when a body is accelerated and undergoes an internal energy change such as in a capacitor that is charging and discharging, that a transient mass term should be expressed in the mass of the capacitor.

Over the last fifteen years, Woodward, his graduate student Tom Mahood, and several others including myself have been trying to flesh out Woodward’s mass fluctuation conjecture with experimental data with mixed results.  It appears that there are many ways to screw up building these G/I ac devices since they are very phase sensitive to forces AND fields that getting it wrong is very easy and getting it right is very, very difficult.   

There is lots more to say, but that’s probably enough for now. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/29/2009 07:53 pm
Quote
G/I ac devices
Alternating current (AC)? What is so special in it for a MLT? For example it could be DC powered. What would be the difference?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/29/2009 08:29 pm
Quote
G/I ac devices
Alternating current (AC)? What is so special in it for a MLT? For example it could be DC powered. What would be the difference?

Sith:

ALL G/I based mass fluctuations are transient by their very nature since they rely on the time rate of change of the power going through the accelerated caps in question, which generates spacetime distrubances around the dielectric in question that propogate away from the G/I drive at lightspeed.  Also if you just kept increasing the applied voltage to a cap in a time varying dc signal, sooner or later the cap will burn out.  So to implement a semi-continuous output force G/I drive, one has to apply an alternating current (ac) excitation voltage to them with higher ac frequencies being better, in fact much better.  Direct currect (dc) won't work for long since the dP/dt term goes to zero after a short time period.  I'm appending again my MLT scaling slide for your reference.   
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/29/2009 08:51 pm
Quote
Also if you just kept increasing the applied voltage to a cap in a time varying dc signal, sooner or later the cap will burn out
Even if the dc is pulsed?

How are the amps and the volts distributed in a full completed MLT prototype system? I mean for high voltage corresponds low current and on the contrary.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/29/2009 09:21 pm
Sith:

Except for your selected ground reference voltage there is little difference between ac and pulsed dc so sure, it could be made to work for pulsed dc if your signal generator was set up for that mode of operation.

"How are the amps and the volts distributed in a full completed MLT prototype system?  I mean for high voltage corresponds low current and on the contrary."

That is up to the designer.  If you look at the MLT scaling chart I sent out, you will note that the magnitude of the delta mass ratio generated in the cap dielectric is proportional to the cube of the cap voltage and the cube of the frequency.  So you can operate at low frequencies, but high voltages verses at high drive frequencies and low voltages and get similar results for a given cap dielectric.  That is what makes these MLTs so difficult to design because there are just so many variations that are possible with some being better than others...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 06/02/2009 07:15 am
What velocities can a MLT obtain in an atmospheric flight and could it be used as an intercontinental hypersonic ballistic plain? This rises the next question - if it can travel in atmosphere pretty well, is there some special way to reduce air drag in order to use less fuel (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)

P.S. As I understand it negative inertia equals negative resistance, do I use the term correct?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/02/2009 01:45 pm
I think you're confusing the operation of a thruster with the operation of an aerodynamic body in atmosphere.  These are two different issues.  In theory, a thruster of sufficient thrust/weight ratio can drive a hypersonic craft, not limited so much by the thruster but by the aerodynamics of the craft.  The limiting factor would eventually be the velocity of the propellant but the effective velocity of M-E thrusters is so high, this could never be a limiting factor.

So, given for example a 1 N/W MLT or UFG, we could easily build a global ambulance that would be about the size of a regular ambulance but capable of hypersonic flight and global range.  All sorts of flying cars and other forms of transport are possible if you can build a 1 N/W M-E thruster.  How fast these craft can go is determined by their aerodynamics and heat shedding abilities and how high they can go is determined by their ability to withstand vacuum and space radiation.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/02/2009 09:49 pm
Guys:

If we have G/I based 1.0 N/W thrusters at our disposal and you have to go long distances greater than say 100 miles on the Earth or any other similar planetary body with an atmosphere, you don't fight the Earth's atmosphere, you go over it!  If your destination is less than 100 miles though just run subsonic at say 600 mph and get to your destination in under 10 minutes.   That's good enough for me... 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 06/03/2009 12:53 pm
(http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/8041/warp.jpg)

Now that's cool because it takes less than 2/10 of the fuel to climb up to orbit. Ordinary it'll take the whole fuel to get there. And we all know that LEO is half way to anywhere :)

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 06/03/2009 03:50 pm
Ok here's a conceptual design for a polywell powered space craft using both fusion heated thrust and Mach-Effect impulse powered by MaGrid power conversion.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 06/03/2009 04:37 pm
Ok here's a conceptual design for a polywell powered space craft using both fusion heated thrust and Mach-Effect impulse powered by MaGrid power conversion.
Read again the title of this thread and think again if this belongs here.

Fusion is the power source for the mach-effect thrusters, and may only be used for reaction boosting thrust in high-g needs.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 06/03/2009 04:50 pm
The vehicle you're proposing utilizes ordinary rocket propulsion.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 06/04/2009 01:25 am
The vehicle you're proposing utilizes ordinary rocket propulsion.

Only for launch from planetary surfaces with too high gravity, and for venting reactor plasma waste products. Bulk of propulsion will be the ME thrusters.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/04/2009 02:03 am
I like it.  How did you get the 7 meter core?  I've never understood how to get a guess as to the size of the core w/cooling, shielding etc. given a fusion core.  For the Poly one supposes the rings are superconducting and therefore probably YBCO cooled with N2.  Since the core needs cooling right at the rings, it seems logical to me 7 meters is enough but I'm curious what the Talk Poly people say here.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/04/2009 04:26 am
Guys:

Until we actually understand what the REAL limits are for a G/I field thruster system, ideas like MLorrey’s MaGrid Fusion powered spacecraft need to be examined and kept in our design files until we know for sure what the highest efficiency obtainable for an MLT or its other G/I field based cousins can be.  Dr. Woodward is still of the opinion that a device utilizing only the M-E impulse term will be power limited by the onboard power supply, so if you want high thrust MLTs running with a delta mass ratio of less than 1.0, then be prepared to anti-up some hefty power levels measured in the MW to GW because the best efficiencies won't exceed 0.001 N/W. 

On the other-hand even Woodward acknowledges that if we can utilize the M-E wormhole term in a stable manner, then 1.0 N/W or better G/I drives are achievable because of the direct real-time energy coupling from the FOAM to the engine's local frame is permitted by the formation of all those transient nano-wormholes around each of the accelerated atoms in the dielectric.  However, Andrew Palfreyman's and my calculations show that if you are pushing on the G/I field and it pushes back by using either of these M-E methods, you are then by definition extracting energy from the G/I field that surround your ship and 1.0+ N/W thrusters become a real possibility.  Only time and more G/I prototypes will tell us what G/I roads are really open to us, so get out there and start building!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/04/2009 04:27 am
Well, it seems that they are of the opinion that the core can be almost any size. Maybe 10m dia. at first but perhaps it could be scaled down to something that would fit under a car bonnet*

*hood, to the Americans ;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Spacenick on 06/04/2009 04:30 pm
It's a pity that it's highly doubtful this technology is at all possible.
However if it is, well then a 1 N/W thruster woudl definitely solve all problems of space flight at once and we could quite easily built a reusable Shuttle that could bring 25 tons to LEO and with a recharge there even to the moon an beyond and it could quite likely do it for the cost of a train ride across the country and maybe with a launch every 48 hours or so.
That would make building huge space nuclear powered ships not much more expensive then building a nuclear submarine maybe even less expensive and travel to Mars wouldn't be much of a chalenge anymore.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/04/2009 06:03 pm
Spacenick:

Considering the promise of this new gravinertial (G/I) field based Mach-Effect (M-E) science and technology, and remember that it is based on Einstein's already well vetted General Relativity Theory (GRT) with only minor tweaks by Dennis Sciama and James Woodward along the way, why do you say that this technology is; "it's highly doubtful is at all possible"? 

The M-E is just a transient inertial effect lurking under Newton's three laws of motion that has been neglected up until now because rockets were good enough to do the things we wanted to do up until now.  Well guess what?  Rockets ARE NO LONGER good enough to do the things we need to be doing to become a space faring civilization!  So we had best stop wishing for a panacea for our rocket problems and find a new path.  That is what the M-E group is trying to do and the more who are willing to participate in this new adventure, the quicker we will find the right way(s) to do it.

The self-financed M-E R&D group also continues to gather hard data that indicates that this M-E based transient mass fluctuation phenomenon does indeed exist, and if the collective aerospace community would apply itself to resolving the remaining issues surrounding its use, the major paradigm shift in our capabilities you comment on will become possible and affordable.  For an example, Dr. Woodward just completed a six month rotary test article study developing an unambiguous demonstration that the M-E’s predicted mass fluctuations can be generated on cue when the appropriate magnitude of bulk acceleration and time rate of change of power through a ceramic dielectric is generated.  This mass fluctuation data, which indicated that it can be generated on cue, has already been presented on this forum.  However, what we had missed before in our previous M-E experiments over the last ten years was the required MAGNITUDE of the bulk acceleration and dP/dt parameters, such as the need for a bulk acceleration relative to the distant stars that is measured in thousands of gees instead of just gees.  We also have to simultaneous maximize the time rate of change of power (dP/dt) being pumped through the accelerated dielectric in question that has to be measured in kVARs (Volt-Amp-Reactive) or tens of kVARs instead of just VARs if we want to generate tens to thousands of Newton of thrust in our M-E based field thrusters.  This is information that was hidden away in the M-E’s wave equation’s constants of integration that were NOT inherently obvious to the most casual observer.   Given these new insights, I have moderately high hopes that the next generation of M-E tests articles just hitting the testing pipeline should perform much better than my Mach-2MHz test article’s previous best thrust output +0.5/-0.2 gram-force.   Of course the proof is in the pudding and Murphy is always waiting to make an ass of one, so we don’t expect any skeptics out there to really believe this stuff until we can float in the test article under its own power for this pivotal demonstration.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Spacenick on 06/04/2009 09:13 pm
If what you say is true, well then goodby rockets hello starships.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/05/2009 04:10 am
That's the whole point of Paul March's WarpStar paper.  Have you read it?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 06/07/2009 08:06 pm
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1114

Guest: Dr. James Woodward. Topic: Mach/Woodward Effect, revolutionary propulsion, gravitation, inertia, electrostriction, specific impulse, interstellar space travel, wormholes. Dr. James Woodward returned to The Space Show for updates on his work with the Mach Effect, also referred to as the Woodward Effect. The first part of the discussion served as primer to the work of Ernst Mach, what the Mach effect is, and how it’s plausible that it could someday lead to interstellar space travel. In this discussion, we learned about propellant, the dialectical constraints, engineering issues, wormholes, and much more. Dr. Woodward also spoke about acceleration, electrostriction, and the physics supporting the theories. We also talked about experiments and what constitutes science. This is a good discussion you will not want to miss. Dr. Woodward also spoke about a paper delivered at SPESIF 2009 by Pharis Williams on five-dimensional theories, electromagnetism, and gravity. You will want to hear what he has to say about this line of research. Dr. Woodward was asked about the rift between the science and engineering fields with the social science fields. He also talked with us about what constitutes serious out of the box research versus whacky ideas, that is real physics, real science. He then elaborated with us as to his interest in revolutionary propulsion. A listener even asked him how he funded his research and if it was ready for primetime, such as an NSF grant. Again, don't miss his response to this question. If you have a comment or question for Dr. James Woodward, please send him a note at [email protected]. His Power Point presentation from the SPESIF 2009 conference will soon be available at the SPESIF 2009 website at http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 06/08/2009 09:04 pm
I like it.  How did you get the 7 meter core?  I've never understood how to get a guess as to the size of the core w/cooling, shielding etc. given a fusion core.  For the Poly one supposes the rings are superconducting and therefore probably YBCO cooled with N2.  Since the core needs cooling right at the rings, it seems logical to me 7 meters is enough but I'm curious what the Talk Poly people say here.

The core is a 3 meter core. The reactor housing is 7 meters diameter. According to rnebel and Bussard, a core with 3 meter diameter magnets would generate 100 MW, one with 3.1 meter magnets would generate 1 GW. The reactor will run hydrogen rich to minimize bremsstrahlung, so there will be excess heat to cool to avoid built up thermalization. The heat will be regen cooled by hydrogen that would in a reaction thrust mode be vented through the bell nozzle and given additional magnetic thrust. Otherwise would be run through the turbogenerators to generate more power for the thrusters and to conserve hydrogen in space. The high thrust would only be needed for exiting atmosphere/reaching escape velocity.

The magnetic core is surrounded by the outer grid that does power conversion and containment, and 1 meter further out from there is the reactor wall, which is made up of hydrogen cooling lines.

There should be enough surplus power available to power up the magnetic ram scoop in the nose for collecting interstellar hydrogen to refuel in transit, also to serve to shield and deflect a lot of unwanted dust and gas at significant percentages of C.

Yes, the magnet toruses get coolant running through them.

The main issues I see in this design is having the ability to radiate and cool the hydrogen in regen/power producing mode. The deployable radiators in the landing struts may be too small to be sufficient.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/17/2009 07:31 pm
G/I Thruster:

“Paul barely understands it and he's been doing this physics for more than a decade.  He's explaining with recourse to particles and waves when in fact this is NOT what the theory is all about.  It's FIELD THEORY.”

You keep hammering everyone in this forum that we are not using the idea of the physics “field theory” correctly.  However, have you ever bothered to fully appreciate what a field theory in physics can cover?  For example let’s take a look at Wiki on what they have to say about the “Field” in Physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics) 

“In physics, a field is a physical quantity associated to each point of spacetime.  A field can be classified as a scalar field, a vector field, or a tensor field, according to whether the value of the field at each point is a scalar, a vector, or, more generally, a tensor, respectively.  For example, the Newtonian gravitational field is a vector field: specifying its value at a point in spacetime requires three numbers, the components of the gravitational field vector at that point.



Field theory usually refers to a construction of the dynamics of a field, i.e. a specification of how a field changes with time or with respect to other components of the field.  Usually this is done by writing a Lagrangian or a Hamiltonian of the field, and treating it as the classical mechanics (or quantum mechanics) of a system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom. The resulting field theories are referred to as classical or quantum field theories.”


In short, a field theory contains charge sources and the energy interactions between these charge sources that is described by the interaction rules as applied to a spatial matrix with arbitrarily small spacing between the points examined in the field’s defined volume.  These field sources can and do have mass such as in any of the atomic elementary particles.  The energy interactions between these charge sources can take the form of particle-like interactions between sources such as photons being exchanged in quantum electrodynamics, or they can be described as energy waves propagating through the field’s volume as in hydrodynamics that use particles to convey these forces at each point in the field.   In any of these field theories though, the usage of particles and waves as parts in the field theory is perfectly acceptable.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/17/2009 07:57 pm
Lampy:

"So... how important are the energy changes? If we have ten million point source dwarves jumping up and down in unison, do we get the same effect or is a change in electron density a key factor?"

The M-E derivation is less than revealing on how the bulk acceleration and dP/dt power flux creates the G/I densification waves that can transiently shield the accelerated dielectric from the ambient G/I field.  I tried to come up with a summary slide on how this works today, but it’s still lacking something in the translation.  However the M-E math does indicate that the larger the dP/dt flux in the accelerated cap, the larger delta mass signature becomes.  And the latest rotary test series indicates that the delta mass signature is proportional to the applied bulk acceleration so one could assume that the total delta mass signature should be proportional to the product of the bulk acceleration times the magnitude of the applied dP/dt power flux.   


 “Interesting, sounds much like raising or lowering vacuum energy levels.

It could be viewed that way.


This G/I densification... this is increase in something akin to ambient gravitational strength, isn't it?”

Since the G/I field is derived from the universe’s gravitational field, the transient G/I field densification could be viewed as having a higher gravitational energy level during that time period.


Quote
“Then, is it thru the inertia wave that you link electromotive force with the force of gravity?”

I wish I could say “Yes”, but at this stage of the game all I can say is that might be the case, but without more experimental data, my answer has to remain a “maybe”.


Connected to electrons themselves, you think, or electromagnetic fields?
[/quote]


IMO it's the electromagnetic fields created in the accelerated dielectric that is undergoing a dP/dt power flux which creates transient E-fields and B-fields in and around the dielectric.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/18/2009 03:12 am
So, the "cap-electrode E-field induced acceleration vectors of each ...[ion]... will be countered by the equal and opposite vector accelerations..."  This sounds like conservation of momentum, but it doesn't sound like forward motion.  But then you go on to posit that the second "externally applied force" is that which accelerates the dielectric mass in the opposite direction.  It is the periodicity of this force which you control to change directions of the mass at precisely the moment when it has "less" mass.

When we were kids, we used to do this at the lake in rental canoes.  You stand up in the canoe, and try to propel it forward by rhythmically pushing your body around, standing in a sort of surfer's pose.  As you can imagine, it's virtually impossible, but a great deal of fun.  Your paddle ball analogy (or whoever's) is more or less the same thing.  This is where the conservation of momentum appears to break down.

What the G/I drive is more akin to the Jesus lizard. It runs like crazy across the water because it makes its action fast (putting its foot down) and then keeping the momentum by swinging its foot forward whilst the water behind flows back into the temporary crater it made in the water.

So that's two actions, down + rear and forward cycling, just like walking.

From Star-Drive's wiki link:

Quote
If an electrical charge is moved, the effects on another charge do not appear instantaneously. The first charge feels a reaction force, picking up momentum, but the second charge feels nothing until the influence, traveling at the speed of light, reaches it and gives it the momentum. Where is the momentum before the second charge moves? By the law of conservation of momentum it must be somewhere. Physicists have found it of "great utility for the analysis of forces"[3] to think of it as being in the field.

See, it's just a matter of cheating. Your momentum is restored to the universe... after 15 billion years...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/18/2009 05:41 pm
Lampy:

The delayed conservation of momentum in the cosmological gravinertial field problem is very much akin to the case of the submarine's propeller back-reacting off the expelled water.  If the sub is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, how long does the expelled water from the prop take to interact with the crust of the Earth if the water flux is directed horizontally to the surface of the ocean where the nearest land could be thousands of miles away?  And how washed out will that water flux become before it gets there??  The time lags, velocity magnitudes and amount of water participating in the propeller's conservation dance with the Earth will be very much different than when this water flux started at the prop.

BTW, I like your Jesus Lizard example, for it makes for a great visual example of describing this "by your bootstraps" propulsion system.  The devil IS in the details!  And just for fun find below a U-Tube URL to the Lizard in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSLUwmJOo_M
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/19/2009 02:15 am
I like the imagery of the lizard also, but the the lizard is pushing on a local physical medium.  I've been thinking about fields, and the fact that their effects propagate at light speed, but I don't get yet what you're pushing against.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/19/2009 03:49 am
I like the imagery of the lizard also, but the the lizard is pushing on a local physical medium.  I've been thinking about fields, and the fact that their effects propagate at light speed, but I don't get yet what you're pushing against.

And who says that a magnetic or G/I field isn't a physcial medium?  Last time I looked electric induction motor's rotors don't push on anything "physical" but they sure do work...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/19/2009 06:19 am
"permittivity" and "permeability" are both used to describe the vacuum WRT magnetic fields.

One of the objections against rocket motors in space was that they "don't have anything to push against." Picture a charged particle (a proton), rushing through space. It encounters a big positively charge particle (Fe3+?) directly in its path.

What happens is that the proton is nudged aside *before* the Fe3+ ion feels the effects. If you think of the ions as being nuts embedded in balls of (weightless) jelly you get the idea. The momentum is stored in the jelly before the nuts (and the rest of the jelly) feel it. Exactly the same thing happens with the G/I field except on a much longer time scale.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/19/2009 12:21 pm
Accepting that it's a physical medium, then what about the idea that it's non-local?  That what you're pushing against is so far away?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/19/2009 03:58 pm
There's no coherent theory of this based upon waves or particles.  If you want to try to see it in light of wave or particle theory you can, and Paul frequently has, but there is no real theory for this.  Jim Woodward's gravinertial theory is pure field theory and just like all electromagnetic field theory we use to explain the action of induction motors, it is not necessary to posit waves or particles.

So until someone actually finds a graviton or a gravity wave, best is to say the local effect pushes on the field but that the field isn't "made " of anything.  (This is not the same as "non-locality.")  Any other explanation is just pure guesswork and does not deserve to be presented as part of a cogent theory.  That's right: gravity waves, inertial waves, density waves--all not part of Jim Woodward's theory.  All extraneous. 

This from a guy who is fairly committed to the theory of quantum loop gravity. . .but there is only rationalistic support for QLG, there is no evidence yet so there's no point in me trying to force bits of QLG into Jim's theory.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Eric_S on 06/28/2009 09:57 pm
If you don't mind me wondering, does anybody here have a rough guess of when the next empirical test is due?

I know that data analysis, etc. takes time, but it'd still be interesting to have that to form a ball park guess about when one can expect results.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/28/2009 10:04 pm
If you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer.  He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September.  There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls.   There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. 

Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 06/28/2009 11:20 pm
Accepting that it's a physical medium, then what about the idea that it's non-local?  That what you're pushing against is so far away?

Ok you need to understand that inertia, the resistance to acceleration, is a sort of gravity tension on any mass by all the other mass in the universe. Imagine that every mass is linked to every other mass in the universe by long rubber bands. Obviously this causes a lot of tension in every direction and would inhibit any object so linked to everything else from changing their acceleration. Velocity is fine, things stay in motion that are in motion, and stay at rest that are at rest. Changing those states with acceleration creates resistance to the acceleration via those rubber bands, much as CEMF arises within an electric coil in response to application of EMF. Inertia is a reaction against acceleration.

Now, if you are able to change the mass of an object when its accelerating in one direction, versus its mass when its moving in the opposite direction, then the reaction will change and result in a net acceleration.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/28/2009 11:51 pm
"Inertia is a reaction against acceleration."

Exactly right and it's because this reaction has a time delay as described by GR, that mass temporarily fluctuates.  If gravity propagated instantaneously, this would not be true and GR would be wrong, but gravity propagates at c and necessarily entails this time delay.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 06/29/2009 02:47 am
Hey fellas,

Just thought you might want to read this. Our European buddies have been making interesting progress over the past couple of years.

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf

What I find interesting is the mass increase of Cooper-pairs and the idea of superconductors breaking gauge invariance... gravitons acquiring mass which increases the gravitomagnetic effect 10^30 fold. This results in measured tangential accelerations of 100 microgees. I wonder if the same results could be explained by G-I theory?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/29/2009 03:20 am
Any idea how old this is?  Just taking a short glance but looks like stuff from STAIF '07 or so, from back before Martin found he was getting the same readings without the superconductor.

After discovering this, at STAIF '08 he had sold the idea of replications to the Aerospace Company, EarthTech and some group in NZ but continued studies threw that all to the winds.  Now if Martin has something new to share I'm certainly interested but he didn't present at SPESIF this year and so far as I know, no new news.  I don't think he knows yet why he has the readings he's had.  Certainly, he didn't need a superconducting ring for them like in this paper.

This is what comes from experimenting without solid theory.  Martin was following a rabbit trail based on things like Pod's work but again like Pod, with no idea why he should find something interesting.

Now if he has some theory and new results, I'm interested; but don't hold your breath.  At STAIF '08 he was looking for billion dollar funding for a huge exploratory project but his results just don't add up.

Martin is a careful experimenter, but he can't explain what he says he sees.  That being the case, he can continue to fund his own research.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/29/2009 04:42 am
If you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer.  He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September.  There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls.   There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. 

Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.

I finished the MLT-2009 this morning and I'm currently running instrumentation calibration tests on it to see if the beast will work as advertised.  I did find out today though that it resonates at ~51.6 MHz verses the 52.0 MHz design point, but the capacitive voltage divider for the cap-ring doesn't seem to be working as planned.  However the 2-turn B-field sensor coil is working to spec.  I hope to have this test article on a shielded load cell by the end of July to see if it will produce any detectable thrust with the maximum peak voltages obtainable uising my 100W, 52MHz RF generator driving it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/29/2009 11:52 am
If you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer.  He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September.  There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls.   There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. 

Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.

I finished the MLT-2009 this morning and I'm currently running instrumentation calibration tests on it to see if the beast will work as advertised.  I did find out today though that it resonates at ~51.6 MHz verses the 52.0 MHz design point, but the capacitive voltage divider for the cap-ring doesn't seem to be working as planned.  However the 2-turn B-field sensor coil is working to spec.  I hope to have this test article on a shielded load cell by the end of July to see if it will produce any detectable thrust with the maximum peak voltages obtainable uising my 100W, 52MHz RF generator driving it.


And here is a picture of the completed test article.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/29/2009 04:17 pm
The coil on the underside (lower left) is for matching?  What happened with the stray capacitance issue and how does that affect your Q?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 06/29/2009 04:41 pm
Excuse me, guys, but the measurement is in inches or metres? I mean - what is the lenght of the device anyway (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)

btw, I apologize for mention it, but you have to know that there are many europeans here and we have different measurement scale. Not that we can't calculate, but it's about convenience :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/29/2009 04:56 pm
Excuse me, guys, but the measurement is in inches or metres? I mean - what is the lenght of the device anyway (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)

btw, I apologize for mention it, but you have to know that there are many europeans here and we have different measurement scale. Not that we can't calculate, but it's about convenience :)

4.00" = 4.00 inches = 10.16cm = 0.1016 meter.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/29/2009 05:02 pm
The coil on the underside (lower left) is for matching?  What happened with the stray capacitance issue and how does that affect your Q?

The 6-Turn, 1.00" (2.54cm) wide yellow mylar covered coil on the bottom of the test article is the matching coil L1 that is sized to provide enough inductance to resonant the MLT's complex impedance at ~52.0 MHz.  As to the stray capacitance and Quality factor issues, I'll be able to tell you about them after I get through running a frequency sweep of the test article from 2.0 MHz up to 200 MHz while using a controlled load impedance.  That will happen in the next few days as my day job & home duties permit.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 06/29/2009 07:46 pm
4.00" = 4.00 inches = 10.16cm = 0.1016 meter.
Thanks
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 06/30/2009 09:21 pm
Accepting that it's a physical medium, then what about the idea that it's non-local?  That what you're pushing against is so far away?

Ok you need to understand that inertia, the resistance to acceleration, is a sort of gravity tension on any mass by all the other mass in the universe. Imagine that every mass is linked to every other mass in the universe by long rubber bands. Obviously this causes a lot of tension in every direction and would inhibit any object so linked to everything else from changing their acceleration. Velocity is fine, things stay in motion that are in motion, and stay at rest that are at rest. Changing those states with acceleration creates resistance to the acceleration via those rubber bands, much as CEMF arises within an electric coil in response to application of EMF. Inertia is a reaction against acceleration.

Now, if you are able to change the mass of an object when its accelerating in one direction, versus its mass when its moving in the opposite direction, then the reaction will change and result in a net acceleration.

This doesn't make any sense.  Why would "tension in every direction" care about acceleration but be fine with velocity?  If you actually think about something tied to a bunch of rubber bands from every direction, if that something is in motion, the rubber bands have to change length, causing the tensions to change.  I don't see how it makes any sense to say that uniform motion makes sense with that metaphor.  Likewise an instantaneous acceleration does not change the band lengths (it changes the rate of change of band lengths), so the bands shouldn't even know it happens until delta t has ellapsed to allow position change.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 06/30/2009 09:32 pm
Considering the promise of this new gravinertial (G/I) field based Mach-Effect (M-E) science and technology, and remember that it is based on Einstein's already well vetted General Relativity Theory (GRT) with only minor tweaks by Dennis Sciama and James Woodward along the way, why do you say that this technology is; "it's highly doubtful is at all possible"? 

He says that because it violates every observation of conservation of momentum we have ever made.  Ever.  There has never been a case of momentum conserving by reacting only on distant stars at a distance of the scale of the universe.  You must ask yourself seriously why does this effect not occur in ANY other situation.  Why is it that only these special devices are able to harness this reaction over such a scale? 

GR (in the form of Einstein's formulation) is extremely well tested and proven for its range of valid scales.  Any "minor tweaks" must not break any other part of the theory as it currently stands, because every observation we have made so far using it has proven true.  I have not had time to read any of the theory papers to see whether this is true or not, but other similar attempts to "tweak" GR and Newton's laws have failed in the past.  I am not saying it is not possible, just that I agree it is extremely unlikely. 

Yes I fully understand the ramifications if it were possible, but wishing does not make it so.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 06/30/2009 09:43 pm
Lampy:

The delayed conservation of momentum in the cosmological gravinertial field problem is very much akin to the case of the submarine's propeller back-reacting off the expelled water.  If the sub is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, how long does the expelled water from the prop take to interact with the crust of the Earth if the water flux is directed horizontally to the surface of the ocean where the nearest land could be thousands of miles away?  And how washed out will that water flux become before it gets there??  The time lags, velocity magnitudes and amount of water participating in the propeller's conservation dance with the Earth will be very much different than when this water flux started at the prop.

BTW, I like your Jesus Lizard example, for it makes for a great visual example of describing this "by your bootstraps" propulsion system.  The devil IS in the details!  And just for fun find below a U-Tube URL to the Lizard in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSLUwmJOo_M


There is nothing whatsoever delayed about submarine propulsion.  Momentum is immediately conserved as the water expelled has the same momentum as that imparted to the sub.  As the wake moves downstream away from the sub, it entrains more water, lowering velocity, but the momentum is still there.  Eventually the momentum is transferred to the Earth as viscous shear forces or stagnation at the landmass.  Throughout this entire process momentum is always locally conserved. 

Momentum is always locally conserved with the lizard as well.  The lizard is in effect a pulsejet pointed slightly down and to the rear.  The momentum imparted by the foot impact travels down and back in a wake that eventually imparts its momentum to the earth, just like the sub wake.  There is nothing astonishing or "by your bootstraps" about it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/30/2009 09:51 pm
The effect probably does occur in many other situations, such as when a steel ball bounces.  The trouble is that unless you specifically design a thruster to take advantage of the effect, it is too small to note.  This is much the same as many other forces--magnetism for instance.  Unless you mine magnetite and refine it, or later make a permanent magnet out of a specific material suited to this, it's very unlikely you'll make use of magnetism.  It was certainly studied and used many centuries before it was understood, but only used in the most simple ways.  A makeshift compass from floating a magnetite sliver on a leaf, etc.  What it took for magnets to come into their own was a fuller understanding of the field theory behind the force, a description of how magnetism works, that enabled construction of things like induction motors.

That's what we have with Jim's theory, an explanation for how/why M-E ought to work that should enable us to move past the seeming inconsequential natural occurrence of the force, like a magnetized sliver on a leaf; to a gravinertial induction motor.

You have to look at the literature and decide from there.  But certainly, M-E does not contradict GR in any way and it is not a violation of conservation in any way.  If it were, it would have been dismissed as a bad joke more than a decade ago.

Forget the "its too good to be true" argument.  If the folks had known where Maxwell and Lorentz's theories would lead them, no one would have believed it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 06/30/2009 09:59 pm
"permittivity" and "permeability" are both used to describe the vacuum WRT magnetic fields.

One of the objections against rocket motors in space was that they "don't have anything to push against." Picture a charged particle (a proton), rushing through space. It encounters a big positively charge particle (Fe3+?) directly in its path.

What happens is that the proton is nudged aside *before* the Fe3+ ion feels the effects. If you think of the ions as being nuts embedded in balls of (weightless) jelly you get the idea. The momentum is stored in the jelly before the nuts (and the rest of the jelly) feel it. Exactly the same thing happens with the G/I field except on a much longer time scale.

This just isn't true.  For two particles in inertial frames (assuming they have not been accelerated recently), their fields extend infinitely far from the particles themselves.  Because relatively shows us that any two inertial frames are equivalent, we can choose a frame that follows the proton or the ion.  There is nothing special about the frame of the proton.  In either case, the field of the particle we are approaching imparts force on us, but the field of the particle we are traveling with travels with the particle, and imparts force on the other particle.  Apart from the already dangerous practice of trying to determine what happens first at relativistic velocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity) let's examine a frame that follows the center of mass of the particles.  In this frame, the proton travels in from the left, and the ion in from the right.  Both of them slow down at the same time (although not the same rate as the velocity of the heavier particle is already slower than that of the proton so that they have equal momentums) as momentum is transferred through the fields of the two particles to the other.  Once again, there is nothing delayed about it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: blazotron on 06/30/2009 10:21 pm
The effect probably does occur in many other situations, such as when a steel ball bounces.  The trouble is that unless you specifically design a thruster to take advantage of the effect, it is too small to note.  This is much the same as many other forces--magnetism for instance.  Unless you mine magnetite and refine it, or later make a permanent magnet out of a specific material suited to this, it's very unlikely you'll make use of magnetism.  It was certainly studied and used many centuries before it was understood, but only used in the most simple ways.  A makeshift compass from floating a magnetite sliver on a leaf, etc.  What it took for magnets to come into their own was a fuller understanding of the field theory behind the force, a description of how magnetism works, that enabled construction of things like induction motors.

That's what we have with Jim's theory, an explanation for how/why M-E ought to work that should enable us to move past the seeming inconsequential natural occurrence of the force, like a magnetized sliver on a leaf; to a gravinertial induction motor.

You have to look at the literature and decide from there.  But certainly, M-E does not contradict GR in any way and it is not a violation of conservation in any way.  If it were, it would have been dismissed as a bad joke more than a decade ago.

Forget the "its too good to be true" argument.  If the folks had known where Maxwell and Lorentz's theories would lead them, no one would have believed it.

My point is not that the effect has not been made use of before (which it clearly has not) but that it has not even influenced any measurements we have ever taken.  If it is in fact occurring when a steel ball bounces, why has it never shown up in any measurements of them?  With magnetism, even before we understood it, we saw that it did things, some of which you have mentioned.  With this proposed effect, there is no evidence whatsoever (outside of the small group related to Woodward) that it exists at all.  Nothing at all from the quantum world all the way up to massive black holes.  Somewhere posted a while back that earlier efforts weren't producing noticeable results because the acceleration was not high enough and the currents were too low.  But what about particle accelerators?  Accelerations on particles can be enormous (I don't know an exact number, but it will be many orders of magnitude greater than those in the test apparati various people are working on). And the magnetic and electric fields in the detectors used are very strong, with enormous currents flowing.  Why is there no trace at all of the effect there?  There is no "seemingly inconsequential natural occurrence of the force" at all to move beyond.

I would posit that it does violate conservation as we know it (I don't know enough about it to say whether it violates GR).  I would say that that right there is enough for it to be dismissed as a bad joke by the mainstream.  You are essentially changing what it means to conserve momentum, and using that to say that you are not violating conservation.  What I am saying is that our understanding of conservation of momentum is in fact violated, and nothing has ever done that in the history of science--nothing.  Even if momentum is conserved at a distance as you suggest, nothing else has ever done that. 

As far as "too good to be true," it isn't the possible applications that make the theory too good to be true.  It is the fact that it does these things by breaking all the science we have ever formulated. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/30/2009 10:44 pm
In the case of the steel ball, which I did not pluck from the air; this has already been the topic of discussion: the ball ought to experience M-E.  All objects under similar conditions ought to experience M-E, billiard balls, etc.  Why has this effect then not been noted?

In short, because in order for it to be noteworthy, it would need to be rectified.  Regardless of the magnitude of the effect, for it to be noteworthy one wants to rectify it.  Remember, for each event that causes a mass fluctuation, there will be essentially four fluctuations: first heavy (positive fluctuation), then light (negative fluctuation), then heavy again, then light again--all the result of a single event that causes the effect.

Now in the case of the steel ball, to note the effect at all you have to have a very fast load cell or some other experimental measurement apparatus.  The ball will change mass in a time varying, cyclic fashion but if you're not measuring the mass of the ball to start with, and not measuring fast enough to see the fluctuation, then it will go unnoticed.

Load cells exist as well as all the other salient apparatus to do the experiment with a steel ball and look for M-E.  This experiment has not been done yet for two reasons.  First, Jim is the only person working on this stuff near full time because he's old enough to be retired.  The rest of us have day jobs even when like you, those include writing a dissertation.  :-)  Second, we've already done a proof of concept test of M-E, looking for the effect alone rather than rectifying it into useful force as with the MLT and UFG thrusters.  The results of those test were posted here in this thread back around March or April (about the time you were off caving.)  Given the utter lack of interest in such black and white test results, I think we now have to presume we need more than proof of M-E.  We need thrust.  But anyone wanting to pursue the steel ball experiment is certainly invited to do so and there are many in Jim's technical working group who would help one approach this experiment.  Again like the rotator, this is a relatively cheap experiment because you don't need vacuum and a thrust balance.  Vacuum would improve the noise floor but I think people have already determined it is not necessary for the experiment.  Chiefly what one needs is a load cell that can take the precise measurement of dm during the fluctuation event.

There may be other natural instances one could look at.  Certainly, there are plenty of examples of aberrations in GR but I have never heard of any of these being linked to M-E theory.  It's possible these aberrations are best described by M-E theory but that will have to wait on the physicists I'm afraid.  They would not be willing to even contemplate GR needs adjustments until they are overwhelmed with aberrations and that's a long time coming yet.

The effect would never happen in a particle accelerator because you need the "squishy bonds" present in larger bits of matter to store the effect.  Single particles do not experience M-E.

And yes, I understand how this still seems to you a violation of conservation.  Until you invest the time to understand how mass can fluctuate at all, this will probably continue to plague you, so I do suggest you take a look at the literature when you can.  Just remember, ALL physicists have this same concern you're sharing as do I, that nothing should violate conservation.  That's why unless you can do the field theory yourself, it's very important to have peer review on any subject like this.  If Jim's theory violated conservation, it would certainly never have passed peer review more than a decade ago.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 06/30/2009 11:46 pm
"This doesn't make any sense.  Why would "tension in every direction" care about acceleration but be fine with velocity?  If you actually think about something tied to a bunch of rubber bands from every direction, if that something is in motion, the rubber bands have to change length, causing the tensions to change.  I don't see how it makes any sense to say that uniform motion makes sense with that metaphor.  Likewise an instantaneous acceleration does not change the band lengths (it changes the rate of change of band lengths), so the bands shouldn't even know it happens until delta t has ellapsed to allow position change."

It's just an analogy and all analogies break down at some point.  If they don't break down they're "examples" instead.  :-)

In this case, the rubber bands provide more tension the further they're stretched and gravity provides less tension the further it's acting.  Analogy breakdown.  But it's still a decent image of tension at a distance and it does manage to evoke the oddness of Mach's Principle that it is matter's gravitic connection with chieflly the farthest matter in the universe that causes inertia.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cgrunska on 06/30/2009 11:53 pm
I keep reading this thread, and my head keeps exploding

neat stuff
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 02:39 am
Your head keeps exploding,  Gees, is that what all this gray goo is all over me?

Please, keep your brains to yourself.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/01/2009 02:49 am
For two particles in inertial frames (assuming they have not been accelerated recently)

Considering what you're attacking, that might not be a fair assumption...  but leave that for now...

Quote
Apart from the already dangerous practice of trying to determine what happens first at relativistic velocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity) let's examine a frame that follows the center of mass of the particles.

That's cheating.  Why don't you take the frame of reference of the heavy ion, as implied by the language of the example?  I think you'll find that the "relativity of simultaneity" gives you a slightly different answer...

Quote
Even if momentum is conserved at a distance as you suggest, nothing else has ever done that.

Object falling in gravity field.  It accelerates.  Without expending propellant.  Where is the momentum coming from?  The gravitating body it's falling towards, naturally - which it hasn't touched yet.

Field theory.

I'm not 100% convinced it's real either, but I think you're being needlessly dismissive of this stuff.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/01/2009 03:25 am
I'm still working on the math, but I want to add an observation. 

Part of the problem with M-E as reported here in this thread are the fairly small forces compared to the power required to activate them.  Presumably this can be remedied by better understanding from further experimentation, which is fine, for the moment.  Now I expect criticism for not metioning thrust efficiency in the proper units, but such a rocket, as currently envisioned, will require a reactor to generate the electicity to realize this effect.  Paul March is claiming to be able to convert electricity directly into forward momentum with the use of the M-E driver.  The main benefit is that this reactor will weigh substantially less (x orders of magnitude?) than a chemical rocket of the same thrust.  And that would be a wonderful improvement, if it can be achieved.  And converting energy into momentum is one way of conserving momentum, right?

However, if I understand them correctly, they (Woodward, March, et al) are also claiming that there is a different term in the equation they use called the wormhole term, or something similar.  If they can use this term, they can "extract" energy from the universe to power their device in excess of the power they provide, unless I'm mistaken.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 03:31 am
"Object falling in gravity field.  It accelerates.  Without expending propellant.  Where is the momentum coming from?  The gravitating body it's falling towards, naturally - which it hasn't touched yet.

Field theory.

I'm not 100% convinced it's real either, but I think you're being needlessly dismissive of this stuff.Object falling in gravity field.  It accelerates.  Without expending propellant.  Where is the momentum coming from?  The gravitating body it's falling towards, naturally - which it hasn't touched yet."

Yeah.  You're right on top of the issue.  I wish I could give an answer here but we need a real physicist.  Lacking one, we need to rely upon the peer review process and it certainly finds Jim Woodward's physics work.

John, stop kidding.  You're not "working on the math" at all.  Like me, you don't have the skills and you're not fooling anyone.  You're a pretender. You're not working out the math for anything.  You're posting nonsense because it suits your delusions.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/01/2009 04:40 am
"permittivity" and "permeability" are both used to describe the vacuum WRT magnetic fields.

One of the objections against rocket motors in space was that they "don't have anything to push against." Picture a charged particle (a proton), rushing through space. It encounters a big positively charge particle (Fe3+?) directly in its path.

What happens is that the proton is nudged aside *before* the Fe3+ ion feels the effects. If you think of the ions as being nuts embedded in balls of (weightless) jelly you get the idea. The momentum is stored in the jelly before the nuts (and the rest of the jelly) feel it. Exactly the same thing happens with the G/I field except on a much longer time scale.

This just isn't true.  For two particles in inertial frames (assuming they have not been accelerated recently), their fields extend infinitely far from the particles themselves.  Because relatively shows us that any two inertial frames are equivalent, we can choose a frame that follows the proton or the ion.  There is nothing special about the frame of the proton.  In either case, the field of the particle we are approaching imparts force on us, but the field of the particle we are traveling with travels with the particle, and imparts force on the other particle.  Apart from the already dangerous practice of trying to determine what happens first at relativistic velocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity) let's examine a frame that follows the center of mass of the particles.  In this frame, the proton travels in from the left, and the ion in from the right.  Both of them slow down at the same time (although not the same rate as the velocity of the heavier particle is already slower than that of the proton so that they have equal momentums) as momentum is transferred through the fields of the two particles to the other.  Once again, there is nothing delayed about it.

Geez, sacrifice me at the altar of physics for attempting to describe lightspeed propagation to someone. Yes, I am familiar with the inverse square law - which in this case we are only using in the classical sense. You just can't choose an inertial frame for a proton and measure its velocity change at the same time. But I'm overly complicating things here.

Let me make this very very simple and clear. If I wave a magic wand at 12:00 GMT (in Greenwich) and make the sun disappear, at what time (in Greenwich) will the Earth go spinning off into the void? Let's treat the sun as a point source too.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/01/2009 05:18 am
However, if I understand them correctly, they (Woodward, March, et al) are also claiming that there is a different term in the equation they use called the wormhole term, or something similar.  If they can use this term, they can "extract" energy from the universe to power their device in excess of the power they provide, unless I'm mistaken.

Yeah, nothing wrong with that. Probes extract energy from the Earth and other planets all the time in slingshot manoeuvres.

>EDIT< Removed OT rant about information loss in black holes
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/01/2009 11:33 am
Lampy:

The delayed conservation of momentum in the cosmological gravinertial field problem is very much akin to the case of the submarine's propeller back-reacting off the expelled water.  If the sub is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, how long does the expelled water from the prop take to interact with the crust of the Earth if the water flux is directed horizontally to the surface of the ocean where the nearest land could be thousands of miles away?  And how washed out will that water flux become before it gets there??  The time lags, velocity magnitudes and amount of water participating in the propeller's conservation dance with the Earth will be very much different than when this water flux started at the prop.

BTW, I like your Jesus Lizard example, for it makes for a great visual example of describing this "by your bootstraps" propulsion system.  The devil IS in the details!  And just for fun find below a U-Tube URL to the Lizard in question:




There is nothing whatsoever delayed about submarine propulsion.  Momentum is immediately conserved as the water expelled has the same momentum as that imparted to the sub.  As the wake moves downstream away from the sub, it entrains more water, lowering velocity, but the momentum is still there.  Eventually the momentum is transferred to the Earth as viscous shear forces or stagnation at the landmass.  Throughout this entire process momentum is always locally conserved. 

Momentum is always locally conserved with the lizard as well.  The lizard is in effect a pulsejet pointed slightly down and to the rear.  The momentum imparted by the foot impact travels down and back in a wake that eventually imparts its momentum to the earth, just like the sub wake.  There is nothing astonishing or "by your bootstraps" about it.


Blaz:

While you are thinking about Lamy's Sun-Earth gravitational transit time question and G/I Thruster's observations on pushing analogies too far before they break, you might also try reading Dr. Woodward's Origin's of Inertia work located at Woodward's CSUF R&D Interest web site.  And I'll even make it easy for you by appending some excerpts from same in a doc file.  When dealing with inertia from the Machian perspective of GRT, Sciama's 1953 paper (see this thread), and Woodward's mass fluctuation conjecture, it’s all about gravitational radiation reaction forces...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/01/2009 12:53 pm
When I say I'm working on the math, in regard to the M-E effect, it doesn't mean I'm working on the math to prove it wrong, or to advance the subject.  It means that I'm trying to understand it.  One could say I'm "pretending" in my intent, but that would be a ludicrous extrapolation implying some sort of telepathic theory.   This stuff is way over my head, and I don't get it.  My ego tells me: "Keep studying, you can get it!"  If ever I do get it, I'll modify my Segway with a M-E driver and....

However, the analogy about an object falling and not expelling propellant is not the definition of "useful"  (aded the word "useful" on 07-01-09 to clear up any misunderstandings) work.  What we all want to understand is how an object rises and does not expel propellant.  Same with the slingshot manuever, which can only happen after the object is made to rise out of a gravity well.  As to the extraction of energy, the planetary body slows its rate of revolution and momentum is conserved.

We understand that magnetism and gravity "act at a distance".  The new GRT tweak here is that inertia also acts at a distance.  So I ask blazotron:  "Is that what you're asking as well?"  The submarine and the lizard use local inertia, whose center of gravity is very close to the sub and lizard.  The M-E effect purports to use the center of gravity of the universe to perform the same action of pushing.

So here's another question for Star-Drive:  Blazotron says that "momentum is immediately conserved", which was my understanding.  Are you also saying that momentum has a speed of propagation, and it is the speed of light?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 02:58 pm
When I say I'm working on the math, in regard to the M-E effect, it doesn't mean I'm working on the math to prove it wrong, or to advance the subject.  It means that I'm trying to understand it.  One could say I'm "pretending" in my intent, but that would be a ludicrous extrapolation implying some sort of telepathic theory.   This stuff is way over my head, and I don't get it.  My ego tells me: "Keep studying, you can get it!"  If ever I do get it, I'll modify my Segway with a M-E driver and....

However, the analogy about an object falling and not expelling propellant is not the definition of work.  What we all want to understand is how an object rises and does not expel propellant.  Same with the slingshot manuever, which can only happen after the object is made to rise out of a gravity well.  As to the extraction of energy, the planetary body slows its rate of revolution and momentum is conserved.

We understand that magnetism and gravity "act at a distance".  The new GRT tweak here is that inertia also acts at a distance.  So I ask blazotron:  "Is that what you're asking as well?"  The submarine and the lizard use local inertia, whose center of gravity is very close to the sub and lizard.  The M-E effect purports to use the center of gravity of the universe to perform the same action of pushing.

So here's another question for Star-Drive:  Blazotron says that "momentum is immediately conserved", which was my understanding.  Are you also saying that momentum has a speed of propagation, and it is the speed of light?

"However, the analogy about an object falling and not expelling propellant is not the definition of work."

Actually, it is.  When something falls through any sort of field potential, it converts potential to kinetic.  If it's a gravity potential, it converts gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy and "the ability to do work" is the definition of energy.

You're not even getting the first week of first year high-school physics right.  You see why its annoying when you pretend you're working on field theory?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/01/2009 03:00 pm
What about the object rising without expelling propellant?  I prefer to focus on this type of work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 03:39 pm
I'm still working on the math, but I want to add an observation. 

Part of the problem with M-E as reported here in this thread are the fairly small forces compared to the power required to activate them.  Presumably this can be remedied by better understanding from further experimentation, which is fine, for the moment.  Now I expect criticism for not metioning thrust efficiency in the proper units, but such a rocket, as currently envisioned, will require a reactor to generate the electicity to realize this effect.  Paul March is claiming to be able to convert electricity directly into forward momentum with the use of the M-E driver.  The main benefit is that this reactor will weigh substantially less (x orders of magnitude?) than a chemical rocket of the same thrust.  And that would be a wonderful improvement, if it can be achieved.  And converting energy into momentum is one way of conserving momentum, right?

However, if I understand them correctly, they (Woodward, March, et al) are also claiming that there is a different term in the equation they use called the wormhole term, or something similar.  If they can use this term, they can "extract" energy from the universe to power their device in excess of the power they provide, unless I'm mistaken.
John, I'm all about trying to explain this simpler stuff but I have explained this before. 

There are several benefits to propellantless propulsion.  Regardless of the thrust efficiency, if one can have truly propellantless propulsion, one no longer needs to carry propellant.  That's a  big deal all on its own.  Even very low thrust efficiencies can be used for tasks like satellite station keeping and would provide a huge breakthrough in sat design offering more capability than we have seen in the past.

Second issue is if you can build a thruster with an efficiency high enough to do startling things.  If you can get for example a full Newton thrust from a single watt of power, then you can build spacecraft with the kinds of qualities that amaze, like Paul's WarpStar design; and have for example a "1 gee solution" meaning you can accelerate constantly in space travel at about 1 gee, and get around the solar system very quickly and cheaply.  Huge benefit and the entire system is opened up for human exploitation because the transport is just so cheap.

If it turns out that we can evoke the wormhole term and run these thrusters in a delta mass greater than mass condition (dm>m), then we can rip gravinertial energy right out of the gravitic field that connects all mass in the universe and harvest it.  We will have unlimited, cheap, clean energy.  All our power needs will be cared for and all our spacecraft will be essentially rangeless.  Also, if we can master the physics of "wormhole territory", we can use it to generate the Jupiter sized masses of exotic matter required to build a traversable wormhole, which means not only instantaneous transport through space, but possibly even transport thought time.  And of course as I've mentioned, if we can generate even temporarily this exotic matter with negative inertia, we can also use it to build warp drives.  All this stuff follows as a natural result of Mach, Einstein, Sciama and Woodward's physics.

No, we're not there and won't be for a very long time unless we first have compelling evidence--evidence that compels the physics community to jump all over what is essentially an entirely new field--gravinertial engineering.  But this is not so strange.  Think what others before Maxwell and Lorentz would have thought of the electro-magnetic engineering we have in the smallest, simplest induction motors.  This stuff always seems like magic to the generations that precede the technology.  That's the way all technology is.  It astonishes.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/01/2009 04:03 pm
The above post is a good explanation of the benefits of M-E drive, but it is not a good explanation of how the M-E drive works.

What interests me at the moment, more so than the energy that could be tapped from the inertial field, is understanding how an object can rise without expelling propellant, or being flung by a mass driver, climbing a tether, or some other commonly available device.

Again blazotron suggests that momentum is conserved "immediately"  Is it thought that there is a finite speed, say c, that governs the speed of propagation of conserved momentum?  Is this the area of GRT which needs modification?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 04:29 pm
Okay.  Simple explanation: "push heavy, pull light."

Given you can temporarily fluctuate mass, if you push it in one direction when it is heavy, and pull it in the opposite direction when it is light, you generate thrust.  It's that simple.  This process, that turns mere M-E into authentic thrust is what is commonly referred to in our context as "rectification" and it is this rectification that would not normally occur in nature.  M-E should.  Thrust should not because it requires some intelligence added to the naturally occurring phenomena of M-E.

Now if you don't get the "push heavy, pull light" description, you need to go back to Newton's laws and do what it takes to understand things like reaction motors.  Reaction motors throw things overboard.  When after you push heavy, the mass fluctuates light, it is as if you had thrown the heavy mass overboard.  I don't know a way to explain any simpler.  If you don't get it, you need to go back to very basic physics.  You do understand how reaction motors work?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/01/2009 06:23 pm
Are there links regarding mass fluctuations?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 06:35 pm
Sorry, I don't understand the question.  You're asking for a hyper-link to a paper on fluctuations?  There's been dozens posted in this thread including the one by StarDrive just above.  You said you read these papers months ago.

Mach Effects (M-E) are mass fluctuations.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/01/2009 06:46 pm
World Wide Web links regarding mass fluctuation from other people than Star-Drive.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 06:55 pm
I think Paul has posted up all the links I know of.  He's much more versed in the literature than I am and knows the history better than I do.  He also understands the physics much better and has been involved more than 3X longer than I have.  I think he's posted up just about everything on the subject.

Why, did you read all those papers?  The one by Andrew Palfreyman and Paul March delivered at STAIF '06 goes into great detail concerning the "push heavy, pull light" explanation.  I can't imagine how you could read that and still ask the questions you do.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/01/2009 10:02 pm
It's ok.  I'll just do my own research and try to figure out what I can at my own pace.  I'm looking for an easier explanation of this stuff which is kinda lazy, I know.  The math is daunting.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 10:17 pm
I'm not chiding you for not understanding the math or physics.  I don't understand them all either.  Almost everyone on this forum knows their math and physics better than I do.

What I'm trying (and failing) to say is that each of us need to take the words of Dirty Harry to heart.  "A man's got to know his limitations."  When you read the very advanced postgraduate field physics of Jim Woodward, the proper response is not to say "I'll figure it out on my own."  You're not going to ever figure out on your own what a "lagrangian" is, or a "hamiltonian", of what it means to "take the fourth divergence" etc.  Not without very substantial and formal background in math and physics.

There are certainly things you can learn on your own and I am always supportive of being a student of life.  But you can't always demand and expect an explanation, when the nature of the answer is beyond your ability to apprehend.  So sometimes it really has to be enough to understand "push heavy, pull light."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cgrunska on 07/01/2009 10:24 pm
for the record, i love this thread.
I'm not attempting to read the papers. Just following the discourse. Fascinating. And you've said we'll know a 'this might just work' answer in just 2 years, fingers crossed?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/01/2009 10:56 pm
I think we already know it works.  If you understand the significance of the rotator data, you know that certainly there is no other explanation of those findings other than M-E.  I think Jim took a year apart from study of thrusters just to prove the science behind the thrusters and it worked.  Certainly we need independent replications before people will pay much action, but I think the rotator data stands on its own for now.

Paul March is set to run his high frequency MLT in the next month or so.  This is serious risk work because he's operating way into wormhole territory where current theory cannot make real predictions.  Paul is going to be tying for something like a 3,000,000 % mass fluctuation and remember, wormhole territory starts with 100% fluctuation.  If Paul's thruster works at all, it could produce thrust on the level of what is required for a WarpStar like craft--high enough thrust efficiency for building "1 gee solution" spacecraft that can drop the cost of all space transportation many, many orders magnitude and make human exploitation of our entire planetary system quickly achievable.  There will still be many issues to work out, like the thrust die-off issue, but I would not be surprised if Paul's current design, using PTFE instead of a ceramic dielectric, doesn't suffer those die-off issues at all.  Also, Paul's design is a pre "bulk acceleration conjecture" design meaning it was designed before we understood the significance of large bulk accelerations in the dielectric.  His design does not provide these very large accelerations so there is an excellent chance that it will work but work much less dramatically than hoped.

Jim will be returning to thruster studies with the UFG design in September.  It is at least possible he will have thrust results by the end of September but given how these things normally go, it may take a few months longer.  This is a less risk approach than Paul March's because Jim is working outside wormhole territory, meaning dm<m or <100% mass fluctuation.  His theory is able to make real predictions for the kind of thrusts he should see, rather than the spitballing predictions Paul is looking at; so the level of pure science to be learned from Jim's approach is significantly higher, even though the utility of his thruster design, thrust magnitude and thrust efficiency is significantly lower.

There will also be refinements in the rotator experiment this coming year.  Jim is planning on a new generation of rotator that can give answers to whether the effect scales parametrically based upon DC offset as is predicted.  That will be important in understanding the effect better and in providing new engineering options in the future.

So all this could happen in much less time then the 2 years you're asked about, but who knows?  These things are hard, VERY HARD to do; and there are always curve balls and set backs to cope with.  But my guess is we'll see both convincing and compelling evidence from one if not two labs before this coming year is out.  If either Jim or Paul get decent results by December, I'd expect them to be publishing and presenting at SPESIF in February.

And then there's Andrew Palfreyman who sounds like he might do another build. . .very exciting if Andrew can scavenge up the time for some new VHF experiments or perhaps another rotator.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/02/2009 01:22 am
World Wide Web links regarding mass fluctuation from other people than Star-Drive.

I assume you mean non-relativistic mass fluctuation, otherwise thousands of links would be relevant. Also the other garden variety of electron mass fluctuations and so on.

I'll repost this earlier link, it doesn't deal with Cooper pairs so much but the references for the relevant researchers' previous work are there. (Tate is her name, IIRC). Note that the theoretical basis for this is very weak, as Star-Drive says. The fact that they record an acceleration of opposite sign to that predicted shows it.

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/02/2009 05:17 am
Lampy, I think this is old work.  IIRC, Martin did this experiement and got interesting results.  Then as a control, he replaced the superconducting niobium ring with aluminum and got the same result.  That means the experiment is terribly flawed somehow.  That's what controls are for.  There was a supposition I heard a year or so ago, that perhaps the effect was caused by the cryogen, but that supposition didn't fly with the three groups who had planned replications and they all cancelled.  Martin did not present new results this last February (as he's accustomed to) and so far as I know, he does not have a working theory or explanation for his supposed test results.

If you want, I can write Eric Davis who would know more, and I can write Martin if you like, but if there were something on the horizon here, I think I would have heard about it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/03/2009 03:46 am
A cryogen explanation sounds interesting. It would best be explained by quantum theories; Robert L. Forward's last paper dealt with proposals along QVF lines.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/15/2009 02:52 am
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.  For the same thrust VASIMR weighs much more, requires much more power and requires propellant--as compared to the MLT Paul March tested in 2005.

Obviously, we can't take those test numbers from 2005 as gospel because they were never verified and never run with the appropriate controls, such as running in vacuum.  And this is why we need independent verification before we can talk meaningfully about comparisons like this, but given those figures VASIMR is not even in the same ballpark.  If the MLT or UFG deliver, VASIMR is dead on arrival.

Same with any propellant drive.  I looked back in this thread for the figures StarDrive shared about the 2.2 Mhz MLT from 2005 but I'm not finding them.  I remember they came up with regard to comparison to GOCE's ion thrusters.  That experiment from 4 years ago was showing results vastly beyond what GOCE has to offer and I think even beyond Deep Space 1.  Maybe someone can find it or I can coax Paul March back to this thread. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MichaelF on 07/15/2009 03:46 am
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

In many cases, and I think this is one, the Soviets were right: "Best is the enemy of good enough".  I think we can work with VASIMR (if not current rockets) until a better candidate emerges (and matures).  Certainly we shouldn't wait for it/them.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/15/2009 03:47 am
GI Thruster:

I've been busy, but since you need some MLT verses VASIMR data here it is in a nutshell.  The VX-200 has a thrust to power efficiency of ~1.0 Newton per 50.0kW of input power or inversely it's 2.0x10^-5 N/Watt.  The Mach-2MHz demonstrated a 5x10^-3 N/7 watts input or 7.14x10^-4 N/Watt.  That is already a factor of 7.14x10^-4 / 2.0x10^-5 = 35.71 times more energy efficient than a optimized conventional electrodynamic ionic rocket design.  Yes, the MLT's lifetime was only 15 minutes of runtime verses the weeks to months required, but it gives one an idea of where these gravinertial thrusters can go once we fully understand and optimize the material science for them.  In other words, 1.0 Newton per Watt G/I field based MLTs and/or UFGs will be buildable in the long term.  The question is how long will it take to get there and that depends on how much time and effort we can throw into their development.

BTW, propellantless drive is a misnomer IMO.  Instead, they should be called a recycled propellant drive since they require a small amount of mass for these mass fluctuations to occur in that is recycled for reuse after every excitation cycle is competed, in much the same way a piston is reused on every rotational cycle of an internal combustion engine. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/15/2009 03:53 am
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

In many cases, and I think this is one, the Soviets were right: "Best is the enemy of good enough".  I think we can work with VASIMR (if not current rockets) until a better candidate emerges (and matures).  Certainly we shouldn't wait for it/them.

I haven't seen a spacecraft design for mars transit using VASIMR that didn't include a fission reactor.  I'd love to believe someone somewhere can convince POTUS to support flying a fission reactor to Mars but somehow I'm not quite there. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/15/2009 03:55 am
GI Thruster:

I've been busy, but since you need some MLT verses VASIMR data here it is in a nutshell.  The VX-200 has a thrust to power efficiency of ~1.0 Newton per 50.0kW of input power or inversely it's 2.0x10^-5 N/Watt.  The Mach-2MHz demonstrated a 5x10^-3 N/7 watts input or 7.14x10^-4 N/Watt.  That is already a factor of 7.14x10^-4 / 2.0x10^-5 = 35.71 times more energy efficient than a optimized conventional electrodynamic ionic rocket design.  Yes, the MLT's lifetime was only 15 minutes of runtime verses the weeks to months required, but it gives one an idea of where these gravinertial thrusters can go once we fully understand and optimize the material science for them.  In other words, 1.0 Newton per Watt G/I field based MLTs and/or UFGs will be buildable in the long term.  The question is how long will it take to get there and that depends on how much time and effort we can throw into their development.

BTW, propellantless drive is a misnomer IMO.  Instead, they should be called a recycled propellant drive since they require a small amount of mass for these mass fluctuations to occur in that is recycled for reuse after every excitation cycle is competed, in much the same way a piston is reused on every rotational cycle of an internal combustion engine. 


And do you have any relative mass/thrust numbers?  I think VASIMR is around 300 kg for 5 N thrust.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MichaelF on 07/15/2009 03:58 am
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

In many cases, and I think this is one, the Soviets were right: "Best is the enemy of good enough".  I think we can work with VASIMR (if not current rockets) until a better candidate emerges (and matures).  Certainly we shouldn't wait for it/them.

I haven't seen a spacecraft design for mars transit using VASIMR that didn't include a fission reactor.  I'd love to believe someone somewhere can convince POTUS to support flying a fission reactor to Mars but somehow I'm not quite there. . .

Since any manned mission to Mars perforce requires a fission reactor along anyway (for surface operations)....might as well go for two.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/15/2009 04:06 am
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."

VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

Ummm, the 1.0 N/W, ~100,000 kg Warpstar-II using solar powered regenertive fuel cells could easily make it from Earth to Mars in 2-to-5 days at 1.0 gee all the way with the transit times dependent on where the Earth is relative to Mars in their respective orbits at the start of the trip.  I'll grant VASIMR uses know physics and has a large developmental headstart when compared to the G/I drives, but it is a VERY power hungry propulsion technology requiring 200+ Megawatt electrical nuclear generators produing just 5,000 Newton of thrust to make that 39 day trip time for a manned mission to Mars.  And even if it takes another decade to perfect the MLTs to the 1.0 N/W level, we will still leave the VASIMR venue in the stardust when it is just finishing up its first Mars runs in say twenty years...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/15/2009 04:21 am
GI Thruster:

I've been busy, but since you need some MLT verses VASIMR data here it is in a nutshell.  The VX-200 has a thrust to power efficiency of ~1.0 Newton per 50.0kW of input power or inversely it's 2.0x10^-5 N/Watt.  The Mach-2MHz demonstrated a 5x10^-3 N/7 watts input or 7.14x10^-4 N/Watt.  That is already a factor of 7.14x10^-4 / 2.0x10^-5 = 35.71 times more energy efficient than a optimized conventional electrodynamic ionic rocket design.  Yes, the MLT's lifetime was only 15 minutes of runtime verses the weeks to months required, but it gives one an idea of where these gravinertial thrusters can go once we fully understand and optimize the material science for them.  In other words, 1.0 Newton per Watt G/I field based MLTs and/or UFGs will be buildable in the long term.  The question is how long will it take to get there and that depends on how much time and effort we can throw into their development.

BTW, propellantless drive is a misnomer IMO.  Instead, they should be called a recycled propellant drive since they require a small amount of mass for these mass fluctuations to occur in that is recycled for reuse after every excitation cycle is competed, in much the same way a piston is reused on every rotational cycle of an internal combustion engine. 


And do you have any relative mass/thrust numbers?  I think VASIMR is around 300 kg for 5 N thrust.

The thrust to weight (T/W) ratio for the VASIMR per your data is 5.0 N / 300 kg = 0.0167 N/kg.  The Mach-2MHz T/W was 5x10^-3 N / 0.145 kg = 0.0345 N/kg that inlcuded its steel Faraday shiled but did not include its 3.8 MHz, 20W RF power supply.  I'm pretty sure that the noted 300 kg for the VX-200 VASIMR does NOT inlcude its 200 kW power supply either...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/15/2009 05:25 am
MichaelF, you said "colonial program" and "just as effective".

I don't think anyone is proposing holding off the initial exploratory missions until long-lived, high-T/W, 1 newton per watt Mach-effect drives are ready.  They may never be, and VASIMR works now.

But if such devices really existed, I could modify my car to go to Mars.  There's probably enough room inside for an advanced spacesuit with a water supply and a small atmosphere regenerator hooked to it.  A spinner (ie: a self-powered Mach-effect engine hooked to an alternator) could easily generate the 20 horsepower or so required for 1 gee, and at 1 gee the trip could take less than 40 hours (not counting the time spent chasing the planet because my car doesn't have a flight computer and I'd just have to aim at the red dot and watch the clock.  Oh, wait, the clock doesn't work - better get that fixed...).  If I were guaranteed access to a hab with food, air, and a toilet once I got there, I just might do it.

Now imagine what a vehicle specifically engineered for the job could be like.  How about a 100,000-ton bulk freighter or a 50,000-ton passenger liner, taking off from Earth and landing on Mars 2-5 days later, with no in-space docking/undocking maneuvers and no microgravity?

That's how much difference this could make in the long term (ie: colonization time frame).  There's no comparison between VASIMR and advanced Mach-effect technology in terms of utility, assuming of course that the Mach-effect engines actually work as well as the proponents hope...

If M-E drives never get beyond the currently-reported levels of thrust efficiency, the improvement over VASIMR is of course significantly less.  If it turns out that robust M-E engines need to have a very low T/W, a VASIMR might actually have an advantage overall, at least for shorter trips like Earth<->Mars.  But it's far too early to assume that sort of thing, especially since a (short-lived, not rigorously isolated) experimental thruster seems to have already shown superior numbers on both counts...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/15/2009 05:58 pm
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

In many cases, and I think this is one, the Soviets were right: "Best is the enemy of good enough".  I think we can work with VASIMR (if not current rockets) until a better candidate emerges (and matures).  Certainly we shouldn't wait for it/them.

I haven't seen a spacecraft design for mars transit using VASIMR that didn't include a fission reactor.  I'd love to believe someone somewhere can convince POTUS to support flying a fission reactor to Mars but somehow I'm not quite there. . .

Since any manned mission to Mars perforce requires a fission reactor along anyway (for surface operations)....might as well go for two.



Hey, I'm all for a nuclear fleet or reusable planetary transit vehicles.

Maybe the reason there never seem to be serious discussions about human Mars exploration is we can't start with this very sensible requirement, space fission; as a given.  Maybe what we need to do is attack the issue directly and openly in public and say we're stuck here unless we can use nukes in space? 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 07/18/2009 06:42 pm
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

This isn't quite so. Beyond the trip time, you need to consider the time and cost of assembling a VASIMR interplanetary vessel in orbit. This is a project in the order of building the ISS without having the benefit of the shuttle for heavy loads. So it will be twice as hard, and likely twice as much construction time, which of course increases the odds of it being cancelled before completion by a factor of ten.

Conversely a ME Thruster driven vessel would be buildable on earths surface akin to building a shuttle orbiter or ocean going vessel in an industrial setting. It would be buildable for a 200-600 million dollars, at most, versus 100 billion for a VASIMR ship. The ME thruster driven vessel would launch from earths surface, travel to Mars, land, be refuelled via an ISRU fuel depot sent by chemical rockets on a slow-boat trajectory years previously, and make the return trip.

Carrying a 100,000 lb cargo each trip, it could put a million lbs of cargo and colonists on Mars in the time it takes VASIMR to complete one trip with four astronauts and a lander, spending a month on the surface.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 07/18/2009 06:48 pm
a ME Thruster driven vessel would be buildable on earths surface akin to building a shuttle orbiter or ocean going vessel in an industrial setting. It would be buildable for a 200-600 million dollars, at most, versus 100 billion for a VASIMR ship.
You mean this rocket here will cost 100 billion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj53rVWK5z0
(http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 07/18/2009 06:59 pm
a ME Thruster driven vessel would be buildable on earths surface akin to building a shuttle orbiter or ocean going vessel in an industrial setting. It would be buildable for a 200-600 million dollars, at most, versus 100 billion for a VASIMR ship.
You mean this rocket here will cost 100 billion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj53rVWK5z0
(http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)



At a very minimum, yes.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 07/18/2009 07:06 pm
And on the other hand with a M-E MLT you can liftoff from the ground, go into space, land on other planets, and lifotff again with the same vehicle, right? :)  At the cost of ~half percent of the whole VASIMR....
 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/18/2009 07:24 pm
be refuelled via an ISRU fuel depot sent by chemical rockets on a slow-boat trajectory years previously

If you can take off from Earth's surface using M-E engines, the thrust efficiency should be high enough for efficient power generation using spinners.  If it's not, chemical fuels won't get you to Mars on a 1 gee trajectory...  and nuclear wouldn't need refueling that soon...

Are people afraid of the spinner idea because it seems so much like a perpetual-motion machine of the first kind?  Or is there really a reason why it wouldn't work?

[Maybe it's a PMM of the second kind - but that would tend to tell against either the whole M-E thruster concept or the Second Law itself...  I really should either work through the cosmic thermodynamics or shut up about this one...]

As regards a VASIMR-based MTV, if we get either Ares V or Jupiter, or even Not-Shuttle-C, it shouldn't take that long or be that expensive.  Launching it in 12-metre-wide 100-ton chunks would be a lot easier than doing it in 5-metre-wide 20-ton chunks...  and the result should be reusable in any case...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/18/2009 10:02 pm
"Are people afraid of the spinner idea because it seems so much like a perpetual-motion machine of the first kind?  Or is there really a reason why it wouldn't work?"

People don't talk about it for the same reasons it is anathema to use the term "anti-gravity."  It immediately turns off folks from listening.  (BTW, M-E thrusters are not "anti-gravity" so there are practical reasons to avoid the use of the term.)

Its true that if we have a very high thrust efficiency M-E thruster it can be attached to a generator and we have power, but that sort of efficiency is still speculative.  Now if we take the test results of Paul March as indicative of what we can make work, then we ought to be able to have that sort of efficiency and we won't need to refuel an M-E driven craft at all.  It will be rangeless.  We're a long way from that sort of development, one supposes; but one never quite knows what will work better than expected.

Remember, one of the keys to thrust and thrust efficiency is frequency.  Running at higher frequencies might give us the efficiencies we're all hoping for which is why Paul March is experimenting here despite M-E theory does not make predictions as to how much thrust he ought to see.  If we can suppose the linear transition through wormhole territory that Paul and Andrew Palfreyman have supposed in their extrapolations of thrust efficiencies in wormhole territory, then we certainly can see the kinds of efficiencies we're hoping for.  As always though, the proof is in experiment.  What we see there is what we get.

But in general, Mike is right.  If you can build a craft that can fly from the surface of the Earth to another planet and return without throwing away parts or burning fuel, your costs drop exponentially for all space transport as well as for craft construction--just what we need for our emancipation from this planet.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Eric_S on 07/19/2009 12:47 am
[Maybe it's a PMM of the second kind

No I wouldn't say that it is. What currently occupies me is weather or not the age of the universe matter for it's validity, otherwise it seems to check out (numbers wise). Which is the reason I'm waiting further experiments that are more conclusive and made by independent peer reviewed credible sources.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/19/2009 01:01 am
All right, I'll tone it down a bit...  Polywell would probably have higher power density anyway...

I suppose it's a bit like Direct - if you started by saying that a few dozen undercover freedom fighters have an idea for a launch system that's twice as good as what NASA chose, and that NASA management is trying to suppress them and is producing bogus analysis data to discredit the idea...  well...

Still waiting for results on a number of fronts - Direct, Polywell, Skylon/SABRE, M-E thrusters...  all low-hanging fruit, one final showdown with physics away from making the world a better place...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MichaelF on 07/19/2009 04:20 am
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

This isn't quite so. Beyond the trip time, you need to consider the time and cost of assembling a VASIMR interplanetary vessel in orbit. This is a project in the order of building the ISS without having the benefit of the shuttle for heavy loads. So it will be twice as hard, and likely twice as much construction time, which of course increases the odds of it being cancelled before completion by a factor of ten.



That does not appear to be the case.  In fact, it's probably the least efficient way to do anything.

We wouldn't be "constructing" anything in LEO.  EOR (similar to the Orion/EDS) of a propulsion/reactor module, a hab module and a descent module* would do quite nicely.

Since the goal is to get people to martian surface, one-way, it works quite nicely.


*-depending on how you like it, the hab module could be the descent module.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/19/2009 06:32 am
[Maybe it's a PMM of the second kind

No I wouldn't say that it is. What currently occupies me is weather or not the age of the universe matter for it's validity, otherwise it seems to check out (numbers wise). Which is the reason I'm waiting further experiments that are more conclusive and made by independent peer reviewed credible sources.

That's a sensible attitude.  I'm curious what you make of the test results of the rotator back last April or so (posted in this thread.)  I am still a bit shocked there has been no real response from academia or USG.  Even the skeptics are silent.  I don't get it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 07/19/2009 11:04 pm
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

This isn't quite so. Beyond the trip time, you need to consider the time and cost of assembling a VASIMR interplanetary vessel in orbit. This is a project in the order of building the ISS without having the benefit of the shuttle for heavy loads. So it will be twice as hard, and likely twice as much construction time, which of course increases the odds of it being cancelled before completion by a factor of ten.



That does not appear to be the case.  In fact, it's probably the least efficient way to do anything.

We wouldn't be "constructing" anything in LEO.  EOR (similar to the Orion/EDS) of a propulsion/reactor module, a hab module and a descent module* would do quite nicely.

Since the goal is to get people to martian surface, one-way, it works quite nicely.


*-depending on how you like it, the hab module could be the descent module.

Lets look at the VSE's planned budget for their Mars plan. Even before a single Mars mission is planned, much more than my estimates merely for the constellation development and the moon shots. By comparison, the ISS has cost some $34 billion.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21720.pdf
"What Are the Costs and Other Details? The Bush Administration has not
provided a total cost estimate for the President’s initiative, or specific plans on how to implement it. As noted, NASA’s “sand chart” suggests that $150-170 billion would be spent between FY2004 and FY2020. NASA has estimated the cost for returning humans to the Moon by 2020 at $64 billion — $24 billion to build and operate the CEV from
FY2004-2020, plus $40 billion for FY2011-2020 to build the lunar lander portion of that vehicle, a new launch vehicle, and operations. The cost of robotic missions are not included. A September 2004 Congressional Budget Office [http://www.cbo.gov] report cautioned that, based on historical trends at NASA, the actual cost could be much higher."

Note the JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer) would have used a VASIMR propulsion system, scaled down from a manned sized model, and was budgeted to cost $10 billion and would have been assembled in orbit.

So it really doesnt matter whether you choose a chemical based Orion mission or a nuclear/plasma VASIMR mission, the costs will be astronomical.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/20/2009 03:12 am
Those are development and program costs.  It's important to distinguish them from incremental mission costs, especially when the mission isn't a one-off (hopefully we'll be visiting Mars a fair bit, and a reusable VASIMR MTV - or even an expendable one, although a nuclear-powered plasma rocket isn't really something I'd like to throw away after one use - would most certainly not cost $1e11 per mission).

Besides, those costs are hardly astronomical.  Obama just spent ten times that bailing out a bunch of bankers.  Canada's (!) attempt at bailing out GM cost more than JIMO.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/20/2009 03:58 am
[Maybe it's a PMM of the second kind

No I wouldn't say that it is. What currently occupies me is weather or not the age of the universe matter for it's validity, otherwise it seems to check out (numbers wise). Which is the reason I'm waiting further experiments that are more conclusive and made by independent peer reviewed credible sources.

That's a sensible attitude.  I'm curious what you make of the test results of the rotator back last April or so (posted in this thread.)  I am still a bit shocked there has been no real response from academia or USG.  Even the skeptics are silent.  I don't get it.

G/I Thruster:

Where did Dr. Woodward publish his latest rotary mass fluctuation experimental results?  Jim's February 2009 SPESIF report was at best an introduction to this body of work without the final data set.  And truth be known, the electrostrictive effect has yet to be fully resolved in the eyes of the skeptics.  So Jim's results won't get noticed until he can get his final results published in a first-tier peer-reviewed journal like Science, Nature, or Physics Review.  And he had better have an iron glad case in place on separating the electrostrictive effect from the mass fluctuation effect before he tries publishing in those venues.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 07/20/2009 04:54 pm
Star-Drive, here's the link to the post of Jim's SPESIF paper, posted in this thread, pg. 20, post # 298:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.285

here's the link to the first of the vids, anyone wanting more can go back and read pp.20-22 or so in this thread:

http://www.zshare.net/video/59506760a6754bd2/

I seriously doubt Jim will bother with publishing for peer review.  He publishes each year at STAIF/SPECIF and has already published for review the pure theory more than a decade ago.  (The differences between first and second tear review are irrelevant here--they're like the differences between a PhD from an ivy league school and a PhD from a state university--no one cares about the distinction except those who hold the ivy league degrees.  What people care about is the quality of the program which can be good or poor at any school.)  IMHO, there is next to nothing to be gained by continuing to publish beyond the simple efforts he's making to keep people up to date.  The proof is really in the experiment and peer review does not particularly motivate for independent replication.  It has other, quite distinct functions.

IMHO, the peer review process is what is required to properly vet theory.  That was done a decade ago.  What Jim is doing the last few years is what is required to properly vet experiment.  Its up to academia to respond or not.  As I said before the first rotator experiment was started, there is a huge difference between convincing and compelling evidence.  The rotator produces convincing evidence but it is not compelling because it is not thrust.  If you want to compel the people with the purses to action, you need to produce lots of thrust.  That seems to me a much more worthy goal than publishing.

One other observation on this topic but from a broader perspective: though independent replication is what is generally accepted as the gold standard for doing science (as opposed to doing technology which does not require this--hence the standards for Technology Readiness Levels) such replication historically is very unreliable.  It is most common for independent replications to fail to follow the same procedures and protocols as the experiment they're "replicating" so that they are not replications at all.  So, in the case of the ORNL experiment, those physicists and engineers were instructed to avoid doing what they did but they did it anyway and received questionable results.  That was not a replication: those engineers were trying to take an enormous leap past experiment to that point, despite they proved they did not understand the field physics involved.

So peer review has a place but it generally concerns theory, and replication has a place but it generally needs to be restricted to real replication to be useful.  Most replications add so much original stuff they are not replications at all.  If you'll remember, my reports from STAIF '08, none of the three replications planned for Martin Tajmar's test results of that time remotely resembled his test apparatus.  (None were built so it doesn't matter.)  That's a result of arrogance, IMHO.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/24/2009 03:49 am
It's thrust Jim... but not as we know it.

I've been wondering if this Mach effect dampens or even cancels gravitational radiation. Gravitational radiation is produced by aspherically accelerating masses... Mach effects operate in the acceleration differential regime, and the "waves" propagate at 90 degrees to each other. I wonder if there's a Maxwellian comparison to this? Yeah, yeah I know, quadropolar vs. dipolar... just thinking out loud...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/24/2009 04:21 am
Lamy:

It all depends on whether the G/I field excitation wavelengths have a bearing on the issue of gravitational radiation.  If one views gravity as a longwave consequence of G/I radiation, and by longwave I mean the resonant cavity wavelength determined by the size of the causally connected universe, then the G/I based inertia thruster may also turn out to be a gravity beam projector as well...  Deck plate gravity generators anyone?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/08/2009 03:32 am
Quote from: GI-Thruster on 08/04/2009 08:36 PM
I'm not certain why this needs a new thread or what the topic is.  There is a field propulsion thread if you look down the list.  Those who think propellantless propulsion violates the known laws of physics are simply misinformed.  Mach's physics is not "new" physics--its century old physics, the stuff Einstein used to create his General Relativity.

GI-Thruster, this particular statement arose in the other thread. I responded to it that it's not true:
1. Mach's effects (distant matter/energy/metric affecting local matter/energy/metric "instantaneously") are not confirmed yet, it's only an interesting conjecture,
2. Einstein did not use them in SR and/or GR.

No one disputed my post there.

Yet, you are again claiming it. You really think that GR includes Machian effects? Point me to one.

-------------------------------------------

GoSpaceX, I was writing you a lengthy reply just when Andy was cleaning up the threads here and the post was lost.  Let me just answer quickly:

1) Mach's Principle has never been "confirmed" is in the eye of the beholder.  I'm sure you know how science works.  There is certainly great evidence for this found in this last year's work by Jim Woodward which you can find in this thread posted back in April or May.

2) Einstien made great use of Mach's Principle to create GR.  For the historical and philosophical background on this you'll enjoy this text:

http://www.amazon.com/Machs-Principle-Newtons-Quantum-Einstein/dp/0817638237/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249700226&sr=8-1
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/08/2009 03:21 pm
G/I Thruster:

The book URL you found on Mach's prinicple is a great find, thanks much for posting it!

As to the comments from the hardnosed engineers like "Jim" and others of his stripe on this forum who want to discuss only near term engineering ideas and results that they understand and/or are comfortable with, I have to point out to them that if we had only taken that approach 150 years ago, we would still be making horse drawn buggies and buggy whips and could still be communicating over the 1840s style telegraphs.  However, some scientific renegades in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, who are now household names, developed a few theories like relativity, modern atomic theory, and quantum mechanics along with the data needed to support them.  Concepts and data I might add that ushered in the atomic and quantum age that has been developed during the 20th Century which in turn ushered in the age of computer.  We also developed during this time period under the duress of two world wars, the old Chinese invention called the chemical rocket to near its theoretical maximum capabilities and started dabbling with nuclear powered variants of same until we lost our collective nerve sometime in the 1970s where we stopped our explorations and burned our Apollo Moon fleet like the Chinese did with their naval fleet of exploration some five centuries earlier.

Well, now it's the beginning of the 21th century and human spaceflight is still stuck in low earth orbit because the chemical rockets that have brought us this far don’t have much more performance capabilities left in them to be exploited, and therefore for every few percentage points improvement in their performance that we gain from now on, we have to expend exponentially increasing efforts/cost to do so, while the safety of such highly stressed systems goes down proportionally as well.  (Remember that each of the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) while running, already run at a power level of ~8 GigaWatts in a 7,000 pound package or 1.42 MegaWatt / pound!) 

We are now very much to the point where if we want/need to go beyond low earth orbit in person and in large numbers, we have to look to a transportation technology with much better performance and safety capabilities than ANY chemical rocket can provide, and do so at an affordable cost.  That means if we are serious about becoming a space fairing civilization where millions of people will one day be making the rest of solar system their place of business and their homes, we have to start now developing atomic powered rockets and/or gravinertial field propulsion systems that will have much higher efficiency and safety numbers than any chemical rocket system can ever muster.  And if we want a safer less politically charged solution than nuclear fission powered rockets bring to the table, then the development of fusion powered gravinertial field propulsion is the only way to go, especially if we want to pursue interstellar flights in the future.  For me this Advanced Concept forum IS the place to discuss these later topics, while we leave the rest of the NASASpaceflight.com forum to the more near-term chemical rocket topics so near and dear to the folks like Jim the rocket scientist.   
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/08/2009 04:52 pm
GoSpaceX:

You mention to G/I Thruster the following comments about Mach's principle:

“GI-Thruster, this particular statement arose in the other thread. I responded to it that it's not true:

1. Mach's effects (distant matter/energy/metric affecting local matter/energy/metric "instantaneously") are not confirmed yet, it's only an interesting conjecture,
2. Einstein did not use them in SR and/or GR.

No one disputed my post there.

Yet, you are again claiming it. You really think that GR includes Machian effects? Point me to one.”


OK, we both need to read the Mach-Principle book that G/I Thruster pointed out in his last post, but in the meantime, I was conversing with Jim Woodward on this question yesterday of whether Mach’s Principle was integrated into the original 1915 GRT by Einstein or not and here is Jim’s reply, which he just gave me permission to post here:


From Dr. James F. Woodward, August 08, 2009

"The issue of whether Mach's principle is contained in 1915 GR depends on how the principle is defined and whether or not one requires that initial/boundary conditions are considered part of the theory.  If all that GR is considered to be is the field equations, then one can make statements like that your correspondent makes.  It is now well-known, if not as widely appreciated as it should be, though, that Mach's principle -- which is one of Einstein's formative principles in creating GR -- is contained in 1915 GR.  That is, no modification of the 1915 field equations is required to encompass Mach's principle.  What is required is the stipulation of suitable boundary and/or initial conditions for it to be shown explicitly that the inertia of local objects is caused by the distribution of chiefly distant matter.  Derek Raine did this explicitly in his doctoral work for Dennis Sciama back in the mid-'70s.

The reason why this has not become textbook stuff (and your correspondent can make the sort of statements he does without looking like a complete jackass) is that while Mach's principle is part of 1915 GR with boundary/initial conditions that correspond to the universe as we see it, it comes with a price.  Either one must accept that, at least as far as inertia is concerned, GR is an "action at a distance" interaction (to account for the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces) -- see Hoyle and Narlikar's book Action at a Distance in Physics and Cosmology (Freeman, 1974) -- or inertial effects must be considered to be contained in the "constraint" equations on initial data (which are elliptic, rather than hyperbolic, and "propagate" instantaneously as a result) -- see Ciufolini and Wheeler, Gravitation and Inertia (Princeton, 1995).

Wheeler hardly mentions Raine at all -- presumably because Raine didn't include the energies associated with gravity waves in his analysis -- and perhaps because Wheeler, despite being an early advocate (with Feynman) of action at a distance electrodynamics, seems to have regarded action at a distance as a serious theoretical consideration as silly.

Actually, of course, who believes what, and why, is irrelevant as far as the physical reality of Mach effects is concerned.  The ONLY relevant question is: are inertial reaction forces produced by the gravitational action of chiefly distant matter (in GR or any other theory you happen to choose to believe in)?  The answer to this question is clear.  They are.

This was shown by Sciama decades ago.  And the same result can be demonstrated for GR conditions using Nordtvedt's formulation of the PPN formalism for linear accelerative frame dragging.  Once you have accepted the fact that inertial forces are produced by the gravitational action of chiefly distant matter, then the rest of the derivation of transient Mach effects follows inexorably.  Whether your corresponded chooses to understand and appreciate this is irrelevant to the facts of the nature of reality.  Science, ultimately, is not a beauty contest determined by fashion or wishful thinking.  Experiments, not the opinions of others, will eventually decide the issues involved.

I suggest that you not waste your time on trying to convince others to take Mach's principle Mach effects seriously.  People get silly theoretical fixations, and it is impossible to get them to abandon them.

As Planck once said, his critics didn't change their minds.  They died.
Building something that works is the only thing that warrants serious attention."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 08/11/2009 12:20 am
... Either one must accept that, at least as far as inertia is concerned, GR is an "action at a distance" interaction (to account for the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces) -- see Hoyle and Narlikar's book Action at a Distance in Physics and Cosmology (Freeman, 1974) -- or inertial effects must be considered to be contained in the "constraint" equations on initial data (which are elliptic, rather than hyperbolic, and "propagate" instantaneously as a result) -- see Ciufolini and Wheeler, Gravitation and Inertia (Princeton, 1995).

Wheeler hardly mentions Raine at all -- presumably because Raine didn't include the energies associated with gravity waves in his analysis -- and perhaps because Wheeler, despite being an early advocate (with Feynman) of action at a distance electrodynamics, seems to have regarded action at a distance as a serious theoretical consideration as silly. ...
Instantaneous-action-at-a-distance is the kiss of death of a physical theory, and rightly so.

Quote
... I have to point out to them that if we had only taken that approach 150 years ago, we would still be making horse drawn buggies and buggy whips and could still be communicating over the 1840s style telegraphs. ...
Physicists who rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance made those great advances in the late 1800s. Physics transitioned from the electric+magnetic laws to electromagnetic waves.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 08/11/2009 01:35 am
Instantaneous-action-at-a-distance is the kiss of death of a physical theory, and rightly so.

Physicists who rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance made those great advances in the late 1800s. Physics transitioned from the electric+magnetic laws to electromagnetic waves.


So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.

Those who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 08/11/2009 04:37 am
So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.
No, the post I was replying to used the telegraph as an example. That was based on various instantaneous-action-at-a-distance electric and magnetic laws. It caused all sorts of confusion -- eg. a telegraph line somehow "knew" how long it was, that reducing inductance in the line would speed up signalling when the exact opposite was true, etc. We would still be stuck in that age if certain physicists (Maxwell, Heaviside, etc.) had not rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance and discovered electromagnetic theory. Everything else followed that.

Quote
Those who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.
You're going to have to come up with a better slogan. Einstein was anti-action-at-a-distance.

Do you *really* believe that a change light years away instantaneously causes an effect here?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 08/11/2009 04:56 am
So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.
No, the post I was replying to used the telegraph as an example. That was based on various instantaneous-action-at-a-distance electric and magnetic laws. It caused all sorts of confusion -- eg. a telegraph line somehow "knew" how long it was, that reducing inductance in the line would speed up signalling when the exact opposite was true, etc. We would still be stuck in that age if certain physicists (Maxwell, Heaviside, etc.) had not rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance and discovered electromagnetic theory. Everything else followed that.

Quote
Those who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.
You're going to have to come up with a better slogan. Einstein was anti-action-at-a-distance.

Do you *really* believe that a change light years away instantaneously causes an effect here?


Explain how light refracts without action at a distance. Nobody could until Feynman said, "the photon follows all possible paths until it determines which path is shortest in time", i.e. the path of refracted light is bent by matter with an index of refraction because the speed of light inside the matter is slower than in air or a vacuum, so light wants to spend as little time travelling slower as possible. He showed that all subatomic reactions work both forward and backward in time as well, and that for some quantum interactions, such as entangled photon pairs, action at a distance DOES in fact, happen.

This is all now well established physics and only fools and idiots refuse to recognise the fact that as far as simultaneity, these effects appear to be action at a distance, just as the Mach Effect appears to be so.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/11/2009 05:33 am
Mikegi, if you want to have a reasonable discussion on this issue, send me a note with your email and I'll forward it to Jim Woodward.  It's bad form to respond to a note that was originally not written to this forum and doesn't allow Dr. Woodward to answer your points.  I think you'd find Jim is very congenial and would take any serious questions seriously.

BTW, are you a physicist?  I ask because I'm a bit stymied that you consider action at a distance the "kiss of death".  We've been looking for gravity waves and gravitons for more than three decades with no success and yet you're so sure they have to exist?  I find the reasoning behind this eludes me.

To the best of my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm wrong here; there is no experimental evidence to date of either gravity waves or gravity particles, but there is evidence for Mach Effects.  Maybe its just me but I want to see physical evidence. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: SimonDM on 08/11/2009 08:38 am
So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.
You should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute , specifically about Hilbert, Lorentz (they're called Lorentz transformations, not Einstein transformations) and Poincaré.

Quote from: mlorrey
Nobody could until Feynman said, "the photon follows all possible paths until it determines which path is shortest in time",
Pierre de Fermat, January 1, 1662

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_principle
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/11/2009 12:09 pm
mikegi:

"Physicists who rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance made those great advances in the late 1800s. Physics transitioned from the electric+magnetic laws to electromagnetic waves."

As G/I thruster noted, Jim Woodward is the best man to answer your questions, but in the meantime I'll try to point out a few details you havn't discussed.

Since you want to point to James C. Maxwell's 1860s Trieste on electromagnetism (E&M), you might also remember that his E&M propagation solution, speed c = (mu0 * e0)^-˝, has two roots in it, not just one, with the positive one being the “normal” forward in time, retarded wave solution, and the other one being the negative root advanced wave solution that implies an E&M wave that propagates backwards in time.  And remember that Maxwell did not toss out that negative root solution.  It was folks like Oliver Heaviside who followed Maxwell that threw out this backwards in time solution as being “unphysical” to them.  However, throwing out that baby in this E&M bathwater may well have been throwing away the keys to the universe.  Luckily, John Wheeler and Richard Feynman picked up Maxwell’s advanced solution results again in the 1940s with their radiation absorber theory, see (http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/dtime/node2.html ), and then John Cramer used it as the lynch pin of his Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM).  ( http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti/ )  Perhaps these approaches to reality may never pan out, or they are just another way to describe a hyperdimensional realm of greater than 4D that we are just starting to sense, but either way, the secrets of gravinertial drives are smack dab in the middle of them.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hec031 on 08/11/2009 12:25 pm
Hey guys, what about the EM Drive concept? Haven't heard anything here about it. I guess there no advocates for that concept here.

If it's real it could have a near term application.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 08/11/2009 12:33 pm
Quote
To the best of my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm wrong here; there is no experimental evidence to date of either gravity waves or gravity particles, but there is evidence for Mach Effects
The wormhole throat is in fact a hyperspace field, isn't it? Therefore the Mach Effects can be explained extreme well with the hyperspace theory of Kip Thorne.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 08/11/2009 12:59 pm
Star-Drive, GI-Thruster

What's your opinion on Heim's work and theories in regards to quantum gravity forces ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory#Heim.27s_predictions_for_a_quantum_gravity_force
http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/burkhard-heim.htm
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 08/11/2009 02:06 pm
BTW, are you a physicist?
Nope, not a physicist. I'm not even a good amateur -- still stuck on the very basics. For example, I have no idea how an old time electromagnetic wave causes an electron to accelerate, much less how an electron "absorbs" a photon. Do you?

Quote
  I ask because I'm a bit stymied that you consider action at a distance the "kiss of death". We've been looking for gravity waves and gravitons for more than three decades with no success and yet you're so sure they have to exist?  I find the reasoning behind this eludes me.
You can use action-at-a-distance (AAAD) when it applies and makes your work easier: short distances and long time scales. EEs do it all this time when we analyze circuits using lumped components like capacitors and inductors responding to low frequencies. It works because the speed of light is so high that any wave effects settle down very quickly compared to the analysis time scale, it is effectively instantaneous. Increase the frequency enough and all sorts of weirdness happens ... until you take into account the finite speed of propagation and use transmission line theory.

If Woodward is proposing some sort of AAAD then I hope he believes that his theory is actually the result of unknown forces that travel at an enormous multiple of the speed of light. I read his stuff a looong time ago and thought it was interesting -- but I'm just as much of a cracked pot as everyone else! The link I have saved no longer appears to work:

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

IMHO, most of this is noise. If you want to see where the next "big thing" is more likely to be discovered, you have to look at the more mundane hardcore experimenters like Grischkowsky at OSU:

http://utol.ecen.ceat.okstate.edu/publicat.htm

It's not as exciting as warp drives, photon torpedoes, etc. But I believe that they will eventually discover reproducible experimental results that can't be explained with current physics theories.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/11/2009 04:44 pm
hec asked my opine of the Shawyer EM drive and Marsavian my thoughts on the Heim stuff.  If you read far enough back in this thread you'll find these subjects dealt with in much more detail but in short--I have been retained in the past to survey all this stuff and judge whether it is at the point it should be supported by investors.  The ONLY approach to advanced propulsion I can recommend as "emergent" meaning it both a) is supported by externally and internally consistent, peer-reviewed theory and b) has empirical data in support is Dr. Jim Woodward's theory.  LockMart has done their own study like mine and come to the same conclusion.

IMHO, Shawyer's theory violates conservation and this is why it has been char-broiled in the peer review journals.  Heim's theory relies upon things like gravitons which we have been looking for now for more than 3 decades with no success.  I therefore see little reason to take an interest in Heim.  Also, there are a host of other difficulties with Heim's stuff and IIRC, even some connections with fraud.  But the first is enough for me to lose interest.  Until we find evidence if gravitons, it seems obvious to me Heim is probably wrong.

On the other hand, we do have physical evidence of Mach Effects. . .

Mike, no.  I'm a philosopher, not a physicist; which is why I am wholly dependent upon things like peer review.  Don't leave home without it.   :-)

BTW, Woodward is not proposing anything about AAAD that is not included in General Relativity.  There's no new physics here--it's just a combination of Einstein and Mach with the only novelty being their combination.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hec031 on 08/11/2009 05:55 pm
GI,

What surprises me is that you guys know Pete at NRO and he won't fund Woodwards effort. He is good at funding crazy ideas with far less emperical evidence to back it than you guys have for yours.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/11/2009 06:28 pm
Looks like we're talking about different Pete's.  The one I thought you were talking about works for USAF at the Pentagon.  Maybe you ought to forward that email to Paul after all.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 08/11/2009 07:18 pm
On the other hand, we do have physical evidence of Mach Effects. . .

Mike, no.  I'm a philosopher, not a physicist; which is why I am wholly dependent upon things like peer review.  Don't leave home without it.   :-)

BTW, Woodward is not proposing anything about AAAD that is not included in General Relativity.  There's no new physics here--it's just a combination of Einstein and Mach with the only novelty being their combination.
I did a quick google search and read through some the experiments. It seems like the numbers are way off and, worse, not even measuring the supposed Mach Effect. The Cramer experiment wasn't "inconclusive", it was a disaster! Properly accounting for all the plain old electromagnetic forces in these experiments is going to be difficult enough, nevermind the small signal you're trying to detect.

Woodward definitely seems to be using AAAD in his theory, both in the quote earlier and in papers on the internet ("non-local momentum transfer" and "advanced waves").

Bad experiments + patents + AAAD = pegged skeptic meter



Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/11/2009 09:01 pm
With all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless.  For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have.  I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments.  Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly.  And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hec031 on 08/11/2009 09:40 pm
I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with Woodward's theory and even if there is, theories can be updated and changed. The facts still stand, he has a real effect, the theory only helps develop the technology further, that's it's main purpose. The theory does not make the effect any less real.

The critical issue that Woodward has to address so he can get more attention and funding (in my opinion) is to find a away to scale the total output thrust of his devices into the milliNewton range. Trust me this is were you start getting phone calls, visitors and NDA's start flying left and right.

Just my suggestion.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/12/2009 02:49 am
hec, you're spot-on.  This is why Woodward is returning to UFG studies in the Fall.

I think we'll see obvious results by October but I get these futurist projections wrong all the time.  :-)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hop on 08/12/2009 04:12 am
I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with Woodward's theory and even if there is, theories can be updated and changed. The facts still stand, he has a real effect, the theory only helps develop the technology further, that's it's main purpose. The theory does not make the effect any less real.
Umm... If the theory is wrong, and the effect is actually due to something else, there's no reason to believe the predictions of the incorrect theory will apply to the correct explanation. Particularly if the actual explanation is some bit of mundane physics that wasn't properly accounted for in the experiment!

mikegi: The pages you mention can be accessed via the Internet Archive http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chaos.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chaos.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/12/2009 04:17 am
Edited due to an uncommon pang of common sense.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 08/12/2009 05:54 am
With all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless.  For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have.  I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments.  Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly.  And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.
Cramer experiment report:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdf

Found possible Mach Effect signal on initial test. When he rotated the device 90°, which should have eliminated any Mach Effect, he got the same signal. Somehow this experiment was deemed "inconclusive" rather than "meaningless".

======================
March experiment abstract:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..813.1321M

The experimental results were off by "one to two orders of magnitude" on the high side. In other words, they didn't see the Mach/Woodward Effect but rather some unaccounted for forces/interactions in their test setup ... just like Cramer.


Hop: thanks for the link.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 08/12/2009 07:41 am
If you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer.  He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September.  There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls.   There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. 

Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.

I finished the MLT-2009 this morning and I'm currently running instrumentation calibration tests on it to see if the beast will work as advertised.  I did find out today though that it resonates at ~51.6 MHz verses the 52.0 MHz design point, but the capacitive voltage divider for the cap-ring doesn't seem to be working as planned.  However the 2-turn B-field sensor coil is working to spec.  I hope to have this test article on a shielded load cell by the end of July to see if it will produce any detectable thrust with the maximum peak voltages obtainable uising my 100W, 52MHz RF generator driving it.


Any results yet?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hec031 on 08/12/2009 12:50 pm
Hop,

Like most people you are missing the big picture of what a theory is and what it is really for. I’m certain you view theories as more important that empirical evidence. I’m sure you see a theory as an absolute, when they are work in progress and always in need of refinement. Theories are a human artifact, they are for our benefit not natures or it’s processes.

Case and point; how insects could fly was an aerodynamic mystery that was only recently resolved and yet even with that gap in our theoretical knowledge base insects manage to stay flying and we managed to make airplanes using the same faulty theoretical aerodynamic model.

If a simple and mundane, theory can account for all the empirical facts in the Woodward effect than were is it? The lack of this simple and mundane model makes a strong argument that the effect is unconventional in nature.

And now, we are right back were we started.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/12/2009 01:28 pm
If you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer.  He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September.  There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls.   There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. 

Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.

I finished the MLT-2009 this morning and I'm currently running instrumentation calibration tests on it to see if the beast will work as advertised.  I did find out today though that it resonates at ~51.6 MHz verses the 52.0 MHz design point, but the capacitive voltage divider for the cap-ring doesn't seem to be working as planned.  However the 2-turn B-field sensor coil is working to spec.  I hope to have this test article on a shielded load cell by the end of July to see if it will produce any detectable thrust with the maximum peak voltages obtainable uising my 100W, 52MHz RF generator driving it.


Any results yet?


Nope, I ran into a 52 MHz driver transmitter problem and I'm currently trying to repair or replace it.  It's just another trouble shooting time eater and expense I have to deal with in my spare time...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/12/2009 02:22 pm
With all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless.  For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have.  I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments.  Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly.  And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.
Cramer experiment report:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdf

Found possible Mach Effect signal on initial test. When he rotated the device 90°, which should have eliminated any Mach Effect, he got the same signal. Somehow this experiment was deemed "inconclusive" rather than "meaningless".

======================
March experiment abstract:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..813.1321M

The experimental results were off by "one to two orders of magnitude" on the high side. In other words, they didn't see the Mach/Woodward Effect but rather some unaccounted for forces/interactions in their test setup ... just like Cramer.


Mike & Hop:

I have to second hec031 in with this M-E modeling business.  You make the best set of guesses you can with the theoretical model you have available, convert that into a spreadsheet format for easier calculations knowing that some parts of the model like the linearized M-E wormhole predictor is going to be WAY off, make your predictions based on that preliminary design tool, run the experiment, and then see what Mother Nature has to tells us. 

In the case of Jim's and my Faraday can shielded Mach-2MHz running at 3.8 MHz that produced ~5.0 milli-Newtons with 20W of input power with a cap voltage of ~125V- peak, (No ion-wind generation in this case folks!), Andrew P. and my STAIF-2006 M-E spreadsheet model, (See attached report),  under-predicted these recorded results by approximately two orders of magnitude.  Since we linearized the M-E wormhole term results because we don’t have the programming skills and super computers required to compute this very nonlinear relativistic gravitational term, (See: Numerical Relativity at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_relativity ), we were prepared to see something larger than predicted.  Guess what, we did.  That was because we were running well above the calculated M-E  dm/m ratio of 1.0, and in fact for the Mach-2MHz, 3.8 MHz case running at 125V-p, the dm/m = ~3.0.

If we had seen a much lower or zero thrust signature than expected with this Mach-2MHz test article, we could have called it a null test results, but since the tests came back with much larger results than predicted by the linearized M-E wormhole term, we said we needed to fall back and punt on the M-E modeling front, much like John Cramer’s group did with their Machian Guitar test series.  They said their results were inconclusive instead of meaningless because due to technical issues they had to run their final test article at a voltage and test frequency (~1,000V-p at ~220 Hz) that almost assured them that they would get a null results per the linearized M-E model, even though they did unofficially see an M-E signal that was running just above their noise limits.  As conservative as John Cramer is in this venue, that says volumes if you know the details of the test and the academic politics surrounding this kind of research.

BTW, I took special care with this Mach-2MHz test article to resolve all the objections raised with my first unshielded MLT-2004 test article, so except for the issue of not running this test article in a hard vacuum to remove the last vestiges of concern over ion and supersonic wind contributions to the recorded thrust signature, (The test article’s metal Faraday shield took care or the first 99% of those concerns including the EMI issues I ran into on the first test series), I have high confidence that these test results reflect a real effect and NOT a test artifact.   And I’m really not sad that the results were higher than expected because that indicates that we should be able to design and build working M-E thrusters once we figure out a way around the short lifetime issues surrounding the use of the high-k ceramic dielectrics used in these test articles.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/12/2009 03:55 pm
The trouble with these judgements above is not so much that they're uninformed (which they are ) as that they're hasty generalizations.  Lumping together issues like patent, old experiment, reinterpretation of test results, and formulating a position in a couple hours is just about as hasty as one can get.

Cramer considered his test results inconclusive because he saw several ways to improve his test but was not able to make the changes because he ran out of funding.  When the pesos dried up, so did his work.  Rather than look at decade old test results and reinterpret them in a contextual vacuum, better is to look at the most recent work and judge it on its own merits.  This takes time.  If you think you're going to look at a complex issue with complex apparatus and complex data and formulate a useful judgement in a few minutes, you're suffering delusions of grandeur.  I would suggest if anyone can't be bothered to invest the time to understand any experiment, they keep their ignorance to themselves.  This business is tough enough that we don't need to waste our time rebutting folks who haven't even taken the time to understand what's going on around them.

Yah. . .stuff like what's posted in THIS thread last April and May. . .
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/12/2009 04:08 pm
"I have to second hec031 in with this M-E modeling business.  You make the best set of guesses you can with the theoretical model you have available, convert that into a spreadsheet format for easier calculations knowing that some parts of the model like the linearized M-E wormhole predictor is going to be WAY off, make your predictions based on that preliminary design tool, run the experiment, and then see what Mother Nature has to tells us. 

In the case of Jim's and my Faraday can shielded Mach-2MHz running at 3.8 MHz that produced ~5.0 milli-Newtons with 20W of input power with a cap voltage of ~125V- peak, (No ion-wind generation in this case folks!), Andrew P. and my STAIF-2006 M-E spreadsheet model, (See attached report),  under-predicted these recorded results by approximately two orders of magnitude.  Since we linearized the M-E wormhole term results because we don’t have the programming skills and super computers required to compute this very nonlinear relativistic gravitational term, (See: Numerical Relativity at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_relativity ), we were prepared to see something larger than predicted.  Guess what, we did.  That was because we were running well above the calculated M-E  dm/m ratio of 1.0, and in fact for the Mach-2MHz, 3.8 MHz case running at 125V-p, the dm/m = ~3.0. "

This is why especially when working in wormhole territory, we need to be satisfied with qualitative rather than quantitative predictions.  There are far too many variables in all these experiments to make useful thrust level predictions.  For instance, we don't even know the actual mass of the capacitor material we've used in ANY of these experiments.  We don't know the percent of the sinter, or the degree the sinter mitigates piezo and electrostatic effects.  We don't know if hydrostatic effect is linear with voltage or if polarizing the active dielectric affects results.  We only barely know what it is we don't know.

However, we DO know of no other effect than the proposed M-E that is found at the second harmonic and in anti-phase with electrostriction.  The only proposed effect here is M-E.  Now of course as hop suggests, there may be another effect.  But this is how science proceeds--primarily through process of elimination of alternatives.  If someone, anyone wants to propose an alternative explanantion for the rotator results, I suggest they step forward and do so.  To date, there have been no takers.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/12/2009 06:16 pm
G/I Thruster:

"For instance, we don't even know the actual mass of the capacitor material we've used in ANY of these experiments."

Ummm, well we actually do know what the dimensions and mass of the Ceramite 500PF at 15kV, Y5U caps used by Woodward in most of his recent experiments as well as our Mach-2Mhz test article to within 0.001” and a tenth of a gram.  I obtained that information by going to the trouble of stripping off these cap’s epoxy overcoat with MEK solvent, desoldering their #20 AWG wire leads and then measuring their OD and thickness dimensions to within 0.001”, weighing them to within 0.10 grams, then averaging the results for both sets of parameters.  Off the top of my head it turned out that they averaged 0.95cm OD, 0.635" thickness, and ~2.4 grams of active mass per cap, which yielded an as-fired sintered density of ~5.45 grams/cc, which is 5.45/5.6 = 97.3% of their ideal density.  These cap volume and weight figures are then used to calculate the dm/m ratio in the M-E spreadsheets, so I had to have them in hand to make any of these predictions.  I've also performed this procedure for over 20 other caps that Andrew P. and I have tested over the last four years. 

I've also tested for the 500 pF cap's piezoelectric effect response coefficient  and found that the population of 50, 500pF caps so tested followed a Gaussian distribution in their piezoelectric response per a test I devised on the fly.  However, to perform a set of calibrated piezoelectric and electrostrictive response tests, we would have to cough up a lot more coin for the required NIST traceable calibrated test equipment than I have at my disposal.

Bottom line in all this is that the state of these M-E tests are not as qualitive as you imply.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 08/12/2009 06:24 pm
"Ummm, well we actually do know what the dimensions and mass of the Ceramite 500PF at 15kV, Y5U caps used by Woodward in most of his recent experiments as well as our Mach-2Mhz test article to within 0.001” and a tenth of a gram."

Yes but you don't know what percentage of that mass is BaTiO3, nor the dielectric properties of the sinter.  And as we both know, we're still discovering just how non-linear these caps are, with huge capacitance drop off at high voltage, etc.  Also, they are not marketed for use at high frequency, so the unknowns here compound quickly.

The point is, there are too many guesses for quantitative predictions at this point.  It is because of the mistaken predictions to date that people keep throwing up this issue that your past work found 2 orders magnitude higher thrust than prediction.  Well that was a BAD prediction based upon a BAD model that linearized transition through wormhole territory with only assumptions this would be adequate.  It was obviously NOT adequate.  The error here was to make the quantitative prediction based upon assumption, which in science; is an unwarranted action.

We do not know enough to make quantitative predictions.  Period.

Period with a caveat: while it's a violation of scientific method to make predictions based upon inadequate theory, it is not a violation to design measurement apparatus based upon a "best guess."  So for example, it's quite correct to take your best guess and design a 2 meter pendulum for testing.  That doesn't violate scientific procedure.  You may find that the test item produces too little thrust to get a measurable deflection on the pendulum, but this doesn't invalidate your method, only your protocol; and you can then simply go to a more precise measurement apparatus (which we know is what you have planned for should that need arise.)  So even though "best guesses" are worthless for scientific prediction, they are entirely worthwhile in designing test apparatus.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 09/07/2009 05:45 pm
I have a question. When a starship travels near the speed of light it's speed increases and it's mass as well, proportionally. In that case time dilation is observed in the craft. Now, what would happen if the mass of the vehicle is negative? Will there a negative effect of time dilation occur? I mean - the crew will live several times faster than the observer?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/08/2009 04:32 am
I have a question. When a starship travels near the speed of light it's speed increases and it's mass as well, proportionally. In that case time dilation is observed in the craft. Now, what would happen if the mass of the vehicle is negative? Will there a negative effect of time dilation occur? I mean - the crew will live several times faster than the observer?

The entirety of the vehicle will never be negative mass. ME thrust does not negate mass, it channels mach effect generated mass changes in a centrifuge to produce thrust.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/08/2009 11:56 pm
So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.
No, the post I was replying to used the telegraph as an example. That was based on various instantaneous-action-at-a-distance electric and magnetic laws. It caused all sorts of confusion -- eg. a telegraph line somehow "knew" how long it was, that reducing inductance in the line would speed up signalling when the exact opposite was true, etc. We would still be stuck in that age if certain physicists (Maxwell, Heaviside, etc.) had not rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance and discovered electromagnetic theory. Everything else followed that.

Quote
Those who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.
You're going to have to come up with a better slogan. Einstein was anti-action-at-a-distance.

Do you *really* believe that a change light years away instantaneously causes an effect here?


Explain how light refracts without action at a distance. Nobody could until Feynman said, "the photon follows all possible paths until it determines which path is shortest in time", i.e. the path of refracted light is bent by matter with an index of refraction because the speed of light inside the matter is slower than in air or a vacuum, so light wants to spend as little time travelling slower as possible. He showed that all subatomic reactions work both forward and backward in time as well, and that for some quantum interactions, such as entangled photon pairs, action at a distance DOES in fact, happen.

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to point that out. There are some other examples which point this out, but for the time being there's no way to use them to transmit information. QM weirdly seems to preserve causality. Heck, some people are still arguing for really fast speeds of gravity, millions of times c. And what is aspin-2 particle doing travelling faster than light?

Star-Drive also pointed out retrograde signals, part of Maxwell's original equations, and again there's no good reason to dismiss them. Again, action-at-a-distance doesn't work if you're just looking at your 4-D space. But we have no idea how many dimensions we actually live in.

Quote
This is all now well established physics and only fools and idiots refuse to recognise the fact that as far as simultaneity, these effects appear to be action at a distance, just as the Mach Effect appears to be so.

Well, that's a bit harsh, but I guess things like tachyons (or rather, tachyonic fields) are gaining popularity again as solutions for a few theories. It'll be a while yet before it even becomes a really big controversial thing, because right now the effects just don't appear in a direct causative manner. But I gues in QM thinking, the effects ARE there, they just aren't there.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/09/2009 12:07 am
I have a question. When a starship travels near the speed of light it's speed increases and it's mass as well, proportionally. In that case time dilation is observed in the craft. Now, what would happen if the mass of the vehicle is negative? Will there a negative effect of time dilation occur? I mean - the crew will live several times faster than the observer?

The negative mass won't be anywhere near enough to be significant. However M-E effects in an inertially accelerated frame of reference are quite interesting. It would seem to get harder to accelerate (requiring higher driving freq's) as your tau gets higher because the FOAM is moving "faster in time." Or maybe not.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/09/2009 12:18 am
With all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless.  For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have.  I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments.  Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly.  And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.
Cramer experiment report:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdf

Found possible Mach Effect signal on initial test. When he rotated the device 90°, which should have eliminated any Mach Effect, he got the same signal. Somehow this experiment was deemed "inconclusive" rather than "meaningless".

======================
March experiment abstract:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..813.1321M

The experimental results were off by "one to two orders of magnitude" on the high side. In other words, they didn't see the Mach/Woodward Effect but rather some unaccounted for forces/interactions in their test setup ... just like Cramer.


Hop: thanks for the link.

Cramer used a mechanical oscillator, a spring.  The previous experiment by NASA's BPL used exactly the same thing, and as I recall they got similar results. Mechanical oscillators just don't have the responsiveness. I personally think it warrants more serious investigation, but this is what, 5 years now, nothing new from NASA? Subscribe to Prof. Woodward's emailing list, it's very enlightening (no pun intended).


"A net unidirectional and reversible force on the order of +/- 3.14 milli-Newton or 0.069% of the suspended test article mass was recorded by us in our first high frequency 2.2 MHz test article. "

This is nothing like what Cramer et al. report.*

"As a null check of this result, we rotated the Mach
Guitar apparatus from a horizontal orientation to a
vertical one, as shown in figure 10. Now, if a varying
gravitational force is present, it should be
perpendicular to the allowed string displacement.
Thus, we would expect only zero or small excitation of
the oscillator. However, we find that in the 90°
orientation, the excitation of the mechanical oscillator
is qualitatively the same as that shown in figure 9."

Star-Drive's and James Woodward's setups use electromagnetic drivers at far higher freq's. Star-Drive runs his at what, 2MHz for the latest rig?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/09/2009 03:15 am
The MLT-2004 ran at 2.2 MHz.  The Mach-2 MHz ran at 2.15 or 3.80 MHz. 

Now think about the M-E math model that Andrew Palfreyman developed in our STAIF-2006 paper that indicates that the M-E delta mass density scales with the cube of the drive frequency.  Compared to Cramer's 1,000 Hz maximum operating frequency that indicates that the delta mass density ratio between the Mach Guitar and my Mach-2MHz experiment running at 3.8 MHz for a given drive voltage would be (3.8x10^6 / 1,000)^3 = 54.872x10^9 times larger. 

And yes the Mach-2MHz maximum drive voltage was down around 125 V-p vs the Mach Guitar's 2.0 kV, but even taking that into account and the difference in capacitance, the net effect of operating at 3.8 MHz with the Mach-2MHz vs the Mach-Guitar at 1.0 kHz yielded a net delta mass density ratio increase of ~2.0 million times to work with for the Mach-2MHz.  In other words this HF drive frequency provided a much larger delta mass leverage arm for the MLT's crossed B-field to work on, so HF to VHF drive frequencies is the only way to fly an MLT... 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/10/2009 01:30 pm
It seems to me that the whole point of these things is to NOT conserve momentum. Am I wrong?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/10/2009 04:22 pm
Yes, you're wrong.  The system has to conserve momentum or it would be nothing more than a bad joke.  The key to understanding how the system conserves momentum is to realize that the entire universe is the system--all of the universe is causally connected through gravinertial force as per Mach's Principle.  It is this connection, chiefly with the farthest matter in the universe; that is what causes inertia.  Given this is so, all gravinertial thrusters and other sorts of Mach Effect technology, rotators, etc.; are harvesting momentum from the rest of the universe.  They are taking advantage of gravinertial flux in and out of the item in question, not unlike how a sail harvests the momentum of the air around it to push a boat.  So to calculate for conservation, you MUST take to account this gravinertial flux.  If you fail to do so, you will certainly think you see a violation of conservation, which is also the case if you fail to account for the wind pressing on a sail.

Gravinertial thrusters are therefore not really best likened to transformers, converting electrical energy to kinetic energy, but rather they are transistors, controlling gravinertial flux.  You absolutely must account for that flux or you will think you are seeing a violation of conservation.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 09/10/2009 04:52 pm
Kinda like how the Apollo spacecraft mysteriously slowed down for a couple of days straight on its trip to the moon, even though it was in hard vacuum.  Draw a box around the spacecraft and you get an unbalanced force.  Include the Earth (and Moon) in the picture and it suddenly makes sense.  Spooky action at a distance...

Standard disclaimer:  I'm not saying Woodward is right.  I haven't studied this stuff anywhere near hard enough to pronounce on it one way or the other.  I'm just saying that as far as conservation of momentum is concerned he could be right.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danny Dot on 09/10/2009 04:58 pm
Kinda like how the Apollo spacecraft mysteriously slowed down for a couple of days straight on its trip to the moon, even though it was in hard vacuum.  Draw a box around the spacecraft and you get an unbalanced force.  Include the Earth (and Moon) in the picture and it suddenly makes sense.  Spooky action at a distance...

Standard disclaimer:  I'm not saying Woodward is right.  I haven't studied this stuff anywhere near hard enough to pronounce on it one way or the other.  I'm just saying that as far as conservation of momentum is concerned he could be right.

If he is right, he is conserving momentum. 

Danny Deger
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 09/10/2009 05:07 pm
That's what I mean - conservation of momentum is satisfied in his theoretical description, and thus is not an impediment to him being right.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/10/2009 05:20 pm
The theory is sound, meaning it is consistent with known physics.  It does however rely upon Mach's Principle.  If indeed inertia arises as a result of the gravitic connection between all the universe's various parts, then Woodward's theory obtains and his technology ought to work.  If on the other hand inertia is an intrinsic property of matter, or arises from some other function such as is proposed in ZPF theory, then Woodward's technology ought not to work.  The proof therefore is in empirical experiment--that's how we determine such things in science--and that's why Woodward spent this last year building and running the rotator rather than continue on with thrusters.

The rotator data therefore is extremely important discovery science.  C'est domage the scientific community has not yet caught up to just how urgent and important this research is.  Hopefully this will change when Jim presents at SPESIF in February.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/10/2009 06:19 pm
GI-Thruster:

"Hopefully this will change when Jim presents at SPESIF in February."

Don't forget Jim's presentation today at John Cramer's 75th Birthday Symposium at the Universtiy of Washington at 3:10 PDT, entitled "Why science fiction has little to fear from science".  I wish I was there to hear it...

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~lisa/CramerSymposium/
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/10/2009 06:55 pm
No joke, that's going to be one conference to remember.  And for those who don't know, Jim, like most profesional educators, is way past being an accomlished communicator.  He's a thoroughly engaging and compelling communicator.  I'm sure his presentation will be great fun for all.  Wish I were there too.

I hope someone thinks to film the sessions and put them on UTube.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/10/2009 06:56 pm
I should mention a couple other things with regards the field theory above.  It's true that some proponents of ZPF theory like Paul March, don't see any conflict between Mach's Principle and ZPF theory.  Paul believes ZPF theory is perfectly consistent with Mach's Principle and about this there can and should be open debate.  Jim would certainly say ZPF theory is wrong and explain how he thinks he knows this.  For the record, I think Jim's arguments against ZPF theory obtain, but Paul doesn't.  That debate will no doubt continue, just as it should, between real physicists.

ZPF theory is appealing to some because it proposes to explain spooky action at a distance with particle theory.  People like particles.  They're something we can visualize to replace the distinctive lack of image associated with field theory.  I like to have a mental image too, which is one reason I'm a proponent of Quantum Loop theory.

I think Loop Quantum Gravity is a better explanation for action at a distance than ZPF theory for several reasons.  First of all, Loop theory appeals because it shows a real connection between all the universe's various parts.  It gives us an image of a multidimensional fabric of space-time, very like the chain mail armor used in ages past, where loops are connected to their closest neighbors and through those neighbors to others, extending out across all space and time.  Loop theory also appeals to me in particular because as I wrote many years ago, it is the only solution to an historic philosophical problem known a "Zeno's Paradox Against Motion."

Zeno was a pre-Socratic philosopher in Greece.  Like most pre-Socratics, Zeno was a monist, like those supposed philosophers much later in India and the far East.  Zeno's argument for monism can be slightly reduced (the real version is longer) just so:

-To get from point a to point b, one must pass through the midpoint between (a')
-To get from point a' to b, one must pass through a second midpoint (a'')
-There are an infinite series of midpoints like this
-Since one can never get to the end of an infinite series, all motion is impossible and illusion

Now, you can pretend you have an answer for Zeno that firmly establishes how he's wrong, but if you have any idea of what the concept of infinity entails, you know that if you grant his premises, his conclusion necessarily follows.  This paradox, like many others of his, obtains if indeed you grant his premises and is truly one big black eye for philosophers for more than 2400 years.

What I like about Loop theory is it denies the premise that there is an infinite number of midpoints between any two points because it says that like matter and energy, space and time have a smallest possible unit.  Basically, Zeno's argument is wrong because it relies upon an infinite regression when Loop theory dictates that is not how reality works.  If space-time is composed of quantum loops with a specific size, it cannot be infinitely parsed.  There will come a point when it can no longer be divided so there is no infinite regression.

I like Loop theory.

One should also note that Loop theory is in accord with the philosophers of the far East who claim to have personal experience with the "connectedness" of all things.  Supposed "enlightenment" experiences all claim to have an ineffable apprehension of this connectedness, and from this posit monism.  But monism is not the experience.  Only the connectedness is the experience, and this is in concert with Loop theory. 

So Loop Quantum Gravity not only gives us an understanding of how fields and action at a distance may work, but answers this ancient paradox of Zeno's and gives us a framework for understanding some kinds of mystical experience.  It is also completely coherent with Mach's Principle and this is all why I like it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/10/2009 07:17 pm
G/I thruster:

Please explain the difference between the diameter of a loop in Loop Quantum Gravity theory and QM's minimum Planck Length.

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

"In physics, the Planck length, denoted, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters.  It is a base unit in the system of Planck units.  The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant.  Current theory suggests that one Planck length is the smallest distance or size about which anything can be known."

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/10/2009 07:23 pm
Philosophers get stuck on Zeno's paradox for the same reason they flunked calculus. ;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/10/2009 07:31 pm
Philosophers get stuck on Zeno's paradox for the same reason they flunked calculus. ;)

That's entirely true.  I'm surprised you know this as it's not particularly common knowledge that those who calously mishandle the notion of infinity, such as engineers and physicists, are the ones who simply don't understand--infinity is not a number.  It's not.  It's only when one presumes it is, as do most engineers, that one can step over the real issues.  Those who understand what the concept of infinity entails would never for example, divide by it.  Division is only suitable with numbers and infinity is not a number because it does not satisfy the identity theorm A=A.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/10/2009 07:32 pm
G/I thruster:

Please explain the difference between the diameter of a loop in Loop Quantum Gravity theory and QM's minimum Planck Length.

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

"In physics, the Planck length, denoted, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters.  It is a base unit in the system of Planck units.  The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant.  Current theory suggests that one Planck length is the smallest distance or size about which anything can be known."



They are the same.  In QM, the claim is about what can be known.  In Loop theory, the claim is concerning existence itself.  In Loop theory, space is the place where existence can occur, meaning it can only occur within the loops and there is literally no "between" them or "outside" them.  So in Loop theory for example, if one presumes our big bang is the only big bang, then existence itself cannot occur outside the farthest reaches of the universe.  There is literally an outside where there are no loops, but there is no way for existence to occur there so "outside" the universe is literally not a place or a space.

QM is talking only about knowledge.  Loop theory is making much stronger claims about existence itself.  More importantly, QM is not saying that space-time has this fabric of quantum loops.  In QM, we have the notion that space is this empty void that stuff like particles move around in.  In Loop theory, the void has structure and reality whether or not a particle is present.  This structure connects all things and can indeed be used to explain spooky action at a distance.  I'd bet if Einstein were with us today, he'd be a very strong proponent of Loop theory.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 09/10/2009 10:20 pm
Explain how light refracts without action at a distance. Nobody could until Feynman said, "the photon follows all possible paths until it determines which path is shortest in time", i.e. the path of refracted light is bent by matter with an index of refraction because the speed of light inside the matter is slower than in air or a vacuum, so light wants to spend as little time travelling slower as possible. He showed that all subatomic reactions work both forward and backward in time as well, and that for some quantum interactions, such as entangled photon pairs, action at a distance DOES in fact, happen.

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to point that out. There are some other examples which point this out, but for the time being there's no way to use them to transmit information. QM weirdly seems to preserve causality. Heck, some people are still arguing for really fast speeds of gravity, millions of times c. And what is aspin-2 particle doing travelling faster than light?
Refraction is explained with standard electromagnetic theory.

Quote
Star-Drive also pointed out retrograde signals, part of Maxwell's original equations, and again there's no good reason to dismiss them. Again, action-at-a-distance doesn't work if you're just looking at your 4-D space. But we have no idea how many dimensions we actually live in.
Waves coming from the future?


Quote
Quote
This is all now well established physics and only fools and idiots refuse to recognise the fact that as far as simultaneity, these effects appear to be action at a distance, just as the Mach Effect appears to be so.

Well, that's a bit harsh, but I guess things like tachyons (or rather, tachyonic fields) are gaining popularity again as solutions for a few theories. It'll be a while yet before it even becomes a really big controversial thing, because right now the effects just don't appear in a direct causative manner. But I gues in QM thinking, the effects ARE there, they just aren't there.
The "well established" part is interesting. Is there a well established theory for why an electron accelerates due to an incident electric field? All I see is a bunch of handwaving about virtual photons, etc. What the heck is an electron, anyway? I guess these are foolish and idiotic questions...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/11/2009 01:53 am
Explain how light refracts without action at a distance. Nobody could until Feynman said, "the photon follows all possible paths until it determines which path is shortest in time", i.e. the path of refracted light is bent by matter with an index of refraction because the speed of light inside the matter is slower than in air or a vacuum, so light wants to spend as little time travelling slower as possible. He showed that all subatomic reactions work both forward and backward in time as well, and that for some quantum interactions, such as entangled photon pairs, action at a distance DOES in fact, happen.

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to point that out. There are some other examples which point this out, but for the time being there's no way to use them to transmit information. QM weirdly seems to preserve causality. Heck, some people are still arguing for really fast speeds of gravity, millions of times c. And what is aspin-2 particle doing travelling faster than light?
Refraction is explained with standard electromagnetic theory.

Not to my knowledge. For refraction to work, without a quantum backward in time, multiversal explanation, you have to assume that photons are intelligent pool players and always know ahead of time what angle through every piece of matter between points A and B is the fastest path.

Standard electromagnetic theory doesn't believe in collapsing probability spheres either.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 09/11/2009 02:35 am
Refraction is explained with standard electromagnetic theory.

Not to my knowledge. For refraction to work, without a quantum backward in time, multiversal explanation, you have to assume that photons are intelligent pool players and always know ahead of time what angle through every piece of matter between points A and B is the fastest path.
You don't see that as evidence against QM and the photon model??? Look at the contortions that QM has to go through to explain simple things like refraction.

Quote
Standard electromagnetic theory doesn't believe in collapsing probability spheres either.
I don't think that nature believes in "collapsing probability spheres" either.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/11/2009 02:54 am
Refraction is explained with standard electromagnetic theory.

Not to my knowledge. For refraction to work, without a quantum backward in time, multiversal explanation, you have to assume that photons are intelligent pool players and always know ahead of time what angle through every piece of matter between points A and B is the fastest path.
You don't see that as evidence against QM and the photon model??? Look at the contortions that QM has to go through to explain simple things like refraction.


The problem is that electromagnetic theory doesnt explain refraction at all, the best it can do is describe it mathematically without explaining why, for instance, in the Huygens-Fresnel principle, waves coming through parallel slits (or more properly, wave peaks for a given frequency) know to line up with each other at a new angle to create a new wave front moving in a new direction, rather than lining up with other waves ahead or behind. The Huygens-Fresnel principle fails in this description as well because it still requires that the photons in the wave front to know and communicate with each other (i.e. QE entanglement) what the speed of light is going to be in the new material it is hitting and spontaneously reorganize a new wave front at the proper angle for the change in wavelength caused by the slowing of the speed of light. There's a whole lot of helpless hand waving going on in the HF principle that remained unexplained until quantum theory came along to explain it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 09/11/2009 05:21 am
The problem is that electromagnetic theory doesnt explain refraction at all, the best it can do is describe it mathematically without explaining why, for instance, in the Huygens-Fresnel principle, waves coming through parallel slits (or more properly, wave peaks for a given frequency) know to line up with each other at a new angle to create a new wave front moving in a new direction, rather than lining up with other waves ahead or behind. The Huygens-Fresnel principle fails in this description as well because it still requires that the photons in the wave front to know and communicate with each other (i.e. QE entanglement) what the speed of light is going to be in the new material it is hitting and spontaneously reorganize a new wave front at the proper angle for the change in wavelength caused by the slowing of the speed of light. There's a whole lot of helpless hand waving going on in the HF principle that remained unexplained until quantum theory came along to explain it.
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/12/2009 05:27 am
The problem is that electromagnetic theory doesnt explain refraction at all, the best it can do is describe it mathematically without explaining why, for instance, in the Huygens-Fresnel principle, waves coming through parallel slits (or more properly, wave peaks for a given frequency) know to line up with each other at a new angle to create a new wave front moving in a new direction, rather than lining up with other waves ahead or behind. The Huygens-Fresnel principle fails in this description as well because it still requires that the photons in the wave front to know and communicate with each other (i.e. QE entanglement) what the speed of light is going to be in the new material it is hitting and spontaneously reorganize a new wave front at the proper angle for the change in wavelength caused by the slowing of the speed of light. There's a whole lot of helpless hand waving going on in the HF principle that remained unexplained until quantum theory came along to explain it.
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?


Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/12/2009 03:00 pm
Guys:

You might consider taking a look at Richard Feynman's 1979 Auckland, New Zealand video lecture series on photons, reflections, refractions, electrons and the QM frontier from his vantage point in 1979.  I'm halfway thru them at the moment and I'm once again blown away by how brillant this man was both in physics and as a teacher.

http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

BTW, in regards your E&M discussions, think about photons, electrons, and their respective interacting temporal phasers instead of classical E&M waves.  That is the road taken by Feynman during these 1979 lectures and it made my QM classes from college so much easier to understand...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 09/12/2009 03:24 pm
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?

Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.
It's not a strawman. It's a real example of changing an em wavefront's direction that you can both simulate via computer and verify with an oscilloscope. No magic communication between wavefront elements required. It's a straightforward result of mindless, completely local wave propagation. We assign concepts like "reflection" to the result but nature couldn't care less.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/14/2009 10:01 am
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?

Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.
It's not a strawman. It's a real example of changing an em wavefront's direction that you can both simulate via computer and verify with an oscilloscope. No magic communication between wavefront elements required. It's a straightforward result of mindless, completely local wave propagation. We assign concepts like "reflection" to the result but nature couldn't care less.


The problem with non QEM explanations of refraction is that the ray of light must penetrate some distance into the second medium in order to know what it is index is, so it knows what direction to travel inside the second medium, yet photons change their vector, as far as can be determined, upon entry into the second medium, even though this should take at least a half a wavelength. However if you take a material with a thickness of less than half a wavelength and send photons through of long enough wavelengths, they still exhibit the full vector change expected of the mediums refraction index.

Also you are talking "conduction", plz be sure we are both discussing photons and not electrons. Dielectric materials deal in electrons. Refraction deals in photons.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 09/14/2009 05:22 pm
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?

Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.
It's not a strawman. It's a real example of changing an em wavefront's direction that you can both simulate via computer and verify with an oscilloscope. No magic communication between wavefront elements required. It's a straightforward result of mindless, completely local wave propagation. We assign concepts like "reflection" to the result but nature couldn't care less.


The problem with non QEM explanations of refraction is that the ray of light must penetrate some distance into the second medium in order to know what it is index is, so it knows what direction to travel inside the second medium, yet photons change their vector, as far as can be determined, upon entry into the second medium, even though this should take at least a half a wavelength. However if you take a material with a thickness of less than half a wavelength and send photons through of long enough wavelengths, they still exhibit the full vector change expected of the mediums refraction index.

Also you are talking "conduction", plz be sure we are both discussing photons and not electrons. Dielectric materials deal in electrons. Refraction deals in photons.
The interactions discussed here are almost exclusively between photons/em waves and electrons, regardless of whether the electrons are bound or free.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/14/2009 06:23 pm
While I admit I'm not following every aspect of this very interesting discussion, I'm enjoying it.  Allow please for me to refocus the original intent: we were talking about action at a distance as relates to gravity theory and specifically, Mach's Principle.  From wiki on AAAD:

"A related question, raised by Ernst Mach, was how rotating bodies know how much to bulge at the equator. How do they know their rate of rotation? This, it seems, requires an action-at-a-distance from distant matter, informing the rotating object about the state of the universe. Einstein coined the term Mach's principle for this question."

If a rotating body did not know there was a rest of the universe, it would not know it was rotating.  So somehow, all the universe's parts know about each other--hence Mach's Principle.

BTW, for a fascinating discussion of this, see "A Closed Universe Cannot Rotate" by D.H.King found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Machs-Principle-Newtons-Quantum-Einstein/dp/0817638237/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252952457&sr=8-3
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/14/2009 06:48 pm
It seems that you can sum this up like this: There is not fixed origin in the universe, or a specific point where you can say "okay, you are now at complete rest". However, this doesn't apply to rotational speed. Clearly, you can tell if an object is rotating or not (by whether or not it experiences centrifugal forces--i.e. it is in a non-inertial reference frame). Why is that? Is it because of the distribution of mass of the universe? Perhaps, but this isn't proven.

But, it seems to me that the Gravi-inertial effect is dependent on concepts like frame-dragging, yet frame-dragging (if it occurs at all) can barely be measured at all (see the difficulty in getting results from Gravity Probe-B), let alone be used for propulsion. It seems to me that the physics behind the gravi-inertial effect thruster experiments are far from proved, even if it is theoretically possible to get SOME sort of exceedingly-small value from it. It seems to me like you're better off developing a propulsion system to ride magnetic-field gradients.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/14/2009 06:58 pm
"It seems to me that the physics behind the gravi-inertial effect thruster experiments are far from proved. . ."

I agree.  In science, in order to have anything approaching "proof"; one of the things we require is repeatability.  This implies that experiments will have to be repeated.  Of course, the notion of "proof" is not really a part of science.  Science doesn't ever prove anything; it merely disproves the alternatives.  So before we can see anything we might want to call substantial evidence of Mach's Principle, something approaching "proof"; we'll need to see a lot of replications of the sorts of experiments James Woodward ran this last year.

In the meantime, it is only fair to recognize that the data to date is more than encouraging.  Anyone who invests the time to understand Woodward's work this last year would be forced to agree.  He DID find a signal at the second harmonic in anti-phase with electrostriction--just as his theory indicates he should.  We therefore need to see some independent replications of this urgent and important experiment.

You're a physicist, Robo.  What's more important in the physics world than discovering the origins of inertia and a way to have a measure of mastery over it?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/14/2009 07:15 pm
"But, it seems to me that the Gravi-inertial effect is dependent on concepts like frame-dragging, yet frame-dragging (if it occurs at all) can barely be measured at all (see the difficulty in getting results from Gravity Probe-B), let alone be used for propulsion. . ."

Mach Effects do not rely upon frame dragging but FD is a necessary consequence of GR.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

"The Gravity Probe B experiment[50][51] is currently under way to experimentally measure another gravitomagnetic effect, i.e. the Schiff precession of a gyroscope,[52][53] to an expected 1% accuracy or better. Unfortunately, it seems that such an ambitious goal will not be achieved: indeed, first preliminary results released in April 2007 point toward a so far obtained accuracy of[54] 256-128%, with the hope of reaching about 13% in December 2007.[55] However, in 2008 the Senior Review Report of the NASA Astrophysics Division Operating Missions stated that it is unlikely that Gravity Probe B team will be able to reduce the errors to the level necessary to produce a convincing test of currently-untested aspects of General Relativity (including Frame-dragging).[56] [57]"

Note, the claim is not that Gravity Probe B has failed to find frame dragging but rather, that it is incapable of doing so.  Lack of evidence is never evidence of lack.  Our best bet is still with GR.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/14/2009 07:29 pm
Note, the claim is not that Gravity Probe B has failed to find frame dragging but rather, that it is incapable of doing so.

That's my point. You're proposing to use an effect related to frame-dragging to produce propulsion. We can barely even measure such an effect, let alone use it to provide a propulsion method capable of competing with a rocket. If such an effect is real, I can see it being used for interstellar travel, but certainly not for reaching LEO. Just saying that it scales very rapidly isn't justifiable, unless you can actually prove it. I really have a hard time believing that you can change the mass of a system with forces internal to the system, since energy is conserved (i.e. to change its mass, you must change its energy--i.e. E=mc^2, but that can't happen in a closed system, and in an open system, that energy would be radiated away, not just available for you to use again, unless you are being pumped by an outside energy source, like a laser).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/14/2009 07:45 pm
"That's my point. You're proposing to use an effect related to frame-dragging to produce propulsion."

Mach Effects are not related to frame dragging except that FD is a consequence of GR which current M-E theory is based upon.  M-E does not scale with dragging or anything else like this so the size of FD has nothing to do with the size of M-E (though, I can see why this might be a misunderstanding.)

M-E scales with many things, such as frequency; but not with any FD effects.  The rest of your post is based on what you don't know and really has nothing to do with M-E physics.  Hopefully Paul can come along here and post some of the scaling laws for us.

But if I may just clear up one point, the mass of the system (the universe) is constant but the mass of the thruster is NOT.  Mach Effects are mass fluctuations.  It is entirely appropriate to generalize that the proof of the pudding here is whether it's possible to fluctuate mass at all.  If it is not, then your complaints obtain.  If it is, they are not coming to the issue.

If mass fluctuations based upon Mach's Principle, General Relativity and Woodward's theory, are possible; the rest is just engineering and yeah, we ought to be able to build very powerful, efficient thrusters.

You should read the papers.  You'd be amazed at what pops out of the math.

Edit: one proviso, we don't yet know how M-E scales through the wormhole boundary.  If it turned out we can't use M-E within wormhole territory, then we would have a serious restriction to thrust efficiency, but it would still seem possible to build very highly efficient thrusters.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/14/2009 08:18 pm
Anything beyond very modest mass fluctuations seem to me to be founded on very shaky ground. I read some of the paper presented by Woodward on his website, and it seemed very heavy in the "we did our math calculations before in some other paper and we get this 2nd or 3rd order effect," when physics often ignores 2nd or 3rd order effects. Many of the arguments are hand-waving, or appealing to obscure papers 50 years ago.

These relativistic gravity effects seem analogous to Magnetism, which is much weaker than electricity (which is its real source). It is easy to show how magnetism arises out of electrostatics with relativistic effects. Why is it so hard to show that these effects arise out of gravity, either with experiment or analytically? (Of course, general relativity is much harder than special relativity.) Gravity is very weak compared to electrostatic or even magnetic effects, so I find it difficult to believe that you're going to end up being able to manipulate it and get effects that are strong enough to be practical.

I expect a thorough and complete theoretical analysis of his work to show that it is no greater of an effect than the impulse imparted by a photon impinging on an object. In other words, I expect the power needed to drive such an effect to scale with frequency in the same way along with the effect.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/14/2009 08:46 pm
Well, I can respect the general tone of conservatism.  Certainly though, if you're saying you read part of one paper that referred to the basic theory in another, then called everything you read in part of a later paper "hand waving", I have to wonder about your basic methods.  I see this all the time in physics--it takes so much time and effort to thoroughly understand anything new that people generally apply laziness to their method and rationalize making what is essentially a hasty generalization (and hence the basis of logical fallacy).  It would be much more in keeping with the general endeavor of science to simply say "I'm not familiar enough to make a call."  I see this method everywhere, even in those who get paid by CIA to vet cutting edge technology.  I suppose if we can't expect those who get paid to vet physics to make a decent effort, we can't expect much from anyone.  And. . .we have the reason no one is paying attention to what could easily be the greatest breakthrough in physics in a century.  Laziness.

And no offense Robo, but if you had read for comprehension, you would certainly not have made the arguments you have directly above.  You're not showing any understanding of the theory, so what was the point in your reading?  This "hand waving" you refer to--how is it, it wasn't objected to by the real work-in-the-world physicists who did the peer review of this more than a decade ago?  They missed the hand waving while you observed it in a casual few minutes of your time?

I don't think so.  Honestly, you need to be a LOT more careful than to make such accusations of people who's works you have not read and do not understand.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/14/2009 09:25 pm
I'm not trying to peer-review this work, just stating my opinion.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/15/2009 12:28 am
G/I thruster:

Please explain the difference between the diameter of a loop in Loop Quantum Gravity theory and QM's minimum Planck Length.

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

"In physics, the Planck length, denoted, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters.  It is a base unit in the system of Planck units.  The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant.  Current theory suggests that one Planck length is the smallest distance or size about which anything can be known."



They are the same.  In QM, the claim is about what can be known.  In Loop theory, the claim is concerning existence itself.  In Loop theory, space is the place where existence can occur, meaning it can only occur within the loops and there is literally no "between" them or "outside" them.  So in Loop theory for example, if one presumes our big bang is the only big bang, then existence itself cannot occur outside the farthest reaches of the universe.  There is literally an outside where there are no loops, but there is no way for existence to occur there so "outside" the universe is literally not a place or a space.

In other words... we are in... The Matrix.

Quote
QM is talking only about knowledge.  Loop theory is making much stronger claims about existence itself.  More importantly, QM is not saying that space-time has this fabric of quantum loops.  In QM, we have the notion that space is this empty void that stuff like particles move around in.  In Loop theory, the void has structure and reality whether or not a particle is present.  This structure connects all things and can indeed be used to explain spooky action at a distance.  I'd bet if Einstein were with us today, he'd be a very strong proponent of Loop theory.

My understanding is that's what QM implies all along. With a bit more fuzziness and the nonzero possibility of turning into blue cheese along the way.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/15/2009 12:48 am
1. Anything beyond very modest mass fluctuations seem to me to be founded on very shaky ground. I read some of the paper presented by Woodward on his website, and it seemed very heavy in the "we did our math calculations before in some other paper and we get this 2nd or 3rd order effect," when physics often ignores 2nd or 3rd order effects. Many of the arguments are hand-waving, or appealing to obscure papers 50 years ago.

2. These relativistic gravity effects seem analogous to Magnetism, which is much weaker than electricity (which is its real source). It is easy to show how magnetism arises out of electrostatics with relativistic effects.

3. Why is it so hard to show that these effects arise out of gravity, either with experiment or analytically? (Of course, general relativity is much harder than special relativity.) Gravity is very weak compared to electrostatic or even magnetic effects, so I find it difficult to believe that you're going to end up being able to manipulate it and get effects that are strong enough to be practical.

1. Even modest mass fluctuations can be usable for thrust.

2. Bad analogy. Gravitomagnetism has nowt to do with this.

3. I don't think it's hard at all. Woodward and March have been demonstrating anomalous thrust with their pocket money.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/15/2009 01:12 am
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?

Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.
It's not a strawman. It's a real example of changing an em wavefront's direction that you can both simulate via computer and verify with an oscilloscope. No magic communication between wavefront elements required. It's a straightforward result of mindless, completely local wave propagation. We assign concepts like "reflection" to the result but nature couldn't care less.


The problem with non QEM explanations of refraction is that the ray of light must penetrate some distance into the second medium in order to know what it is index is, so it knows what direction to travel inside the second medium, yet photons change their vector, as far as can be determined, upon entry into the second medium, even though this should take at least a half a wavelength. However if you take a material with a thickness of less than half a wavelength and send photons through of long enough wavelengths, they still exhibit the full vector change expected of the mediums refraction index.

Also you are talking "conduction", plz be sure we are both discussing photons and not electrons. Dielectric materials deal in electrons. Refraction deals in photons.


Electrons also display similar behaviour - the double slit experiment works for them too.

Bizarrely enough, I watched an episode of Stargate Atlantis where they actually mentioned this very concept (QM refraction). I was very impressed by the highbrow stuff that the writers sneak in through Rodney's technobabble.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/15/2009 04:38 am
1. Anything beyond very modest mass fluctuations seem to me to be founded on very shaky ground. I read some of the paper presented by Woodward on his website, and it seemed very heavy in the "we did our math calculations before in some other paper and we get this 2nd or 3rd order effect," when physics often ignores 2nd or 3rd order effects. Many of the arguments are hand-waving, or appealing to obscure papers 50 years ago.

2. These relativistic gravity effects seem analogous to Magnetism, which is much weaker than electricity (which is its real source). It is easy to show how magnetism arises out of electrostatics with relativistic effects.

3. Why is it so hard to show that these effects arise out of gravity, either with experiment or analytically? (Of course, general relativity is much harder than special relativity.) Gravity is very weak compared to electrostatic or even magnetic effects, so I find it difficult to believe that you're going to end up being able to manipulate it and get effects that are strong enough to be practical.

1. Even modest mass fluctuations can be usable for thrust.

2. Bad analogy. Gravitomagnetism has nowt to do with this.

3. I don't think it's hard at all. Woodward and March have been demonstrating anomalous thrust with their pocket money.

Lampy & Robobeat:

"3. I don't think it's hard at all.  Woodward and March have been demonstrating anomalous thrust with their pocket money."

The reason that we have demonstrated up to milli-Newton plus forces with proof of principle M-E devices using our "pocket change" is that while gravitational forces on a per atom basis are ~40 orders of magnitude weaker than electric charges, there is no plus or minus gravitational mass or energy charges as there is in electrostatics.  Gravitational mass/energy charges do NOT subtract from each other as they do in electrostatics over large distances.  They only add.  So when the gravitational charge of the universe's ~1x10^80+ atoms plus Dark Energy are summed over the volume of the casually connected universe, these additive gravitational forces become what we call “inertial forces” that are proportional to the applied local force, have the opposite sign, and are instantaneous as well.  This is not supposition on our part for it is contained in Newton’s three laws of motion for any to see if you bother to look for it, and it is demonstrated and verified every day when an object moves relative to the distant stars.  It seems that a lot of folks miss this one simple fact and that is what living in a Machian universe brings to the table.  And while you are correct in saying that what Woodward has found in his Mach-Effect is a secondary time derivative effect of the primary inertial force, his M-E derivation and our existing experimental data indicates that these “secondary” transient inertial forces can be as large or larger than the primary inertial forces under the appropriate extreme dE/dt and bulk acceleration or da/dt (jerk) conditions.  And that is what we are trying to harness in our M-E thruster work. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/15/2009 01:36 pm
Well, Star-drive, I am glad that you guys are seeing good results, even though I don't quite accept the theoretical aspects. I hope you guys are able to find a useful effect.

When I look at the competing theories for the origin of inertia/gravity (Machian vs Quantum vacuum), I am more persuaded by the Quantum vacuum effect. The Machian idea seems to much to rely on non-local effects for my tastes as a physicist, and the quantum vacuum people do a better job of making the physics understandable--although both approaches are controversial in the physics community and currently have their flaws.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/15/2009 11:32 pm
Well, I must admit I'm more persuaded by the Machian. There is some (slight) evidence for action-at-a-distance - such as the post-Big Bang inhomogeneities. QVF, I can accept but the issue for me is the reference frame for this medium. How or why is it at rest? Etc.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/16/2009 12:10 am
Well, I must admit I'm more persuaded by the Machian. There is some (slight) evidence for action-at-a-distance - such as the post-Big Bang inhomogeneities. QVF, I can accept but the issue for me is the reference frame for this medium. How or why is it at rest? Etc.

Yeah, that the qvf ref frame is always at rest seems odd (and illogical) to me, too, but quantum vacuum fluctuations are already appealed to in relatively mainstream physics as explanations for a wide variety of physical phenomenon, and that would also have to act the same in all inertial ref frames, so that's kind of why a quantum vacuum source of inertia seems more plausible than a Machian source. I still don't completely buy either explanations, though.

EDIT: And it OUGHT to be at rest if it's true at all, since many experiments have shown that there isn't an "ether" frame that we are moving with respect to.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/16/2009 04:11 am
Well, I must admit I'm more persuaded by the Machian. There is some (slight) evidence for action-at-a-distance - such as the post-Big Bang inhomogeneities. QVF, I can accept but the issue for me is the reference frame for this medium. How or why is it at rest? Etc.

Yeah, that the qvf ref frame is always at rest seems odd (and illogical) to me, too, but quantum vacuum fluctuations are already appealed to in relatively mainstream physics as explanations for a wide variety of physical phenomenon, and that would also have to act the same in all inertial ref frames, so that's kind of why a quantum vacuum source of inertia seems more plausible than a Machian source. I still don't completely buy either explanations, though.

EDIT: And it OUGHT to be at rest if it's true at all, since many experiments have shown that there isn't an "ether" frame that we are moving with respect to.

Robotbeat & Lampy:

There is alternate way to view the M-E and that is through the lens of Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations controlled by standard neutral plasma hydrodynamics, which is being pursued by a local friend of mine by the name of Dr. Harold (Sonny) White who has a PhD in plasma physics from Rice University and who also works at NASA/JSC.  I'm attaching a STAIF-2007 presentation of his describing his early thoughts on this topic, but we've yet been able to obtain any substantiating experimental data for his QVF/MHD conjecture, so it is still very speculative until his latest test article gets its run in the force pendulum later on this year.  In the long haul we will no doubt have to merge the GRT based M-E with the QM based QVF/MHD world view into a quantum gravity theory that experimental data has verified, but until then we have to use both of these approaches to guide our experimental studies and hope that luck will be on our side in the interim. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 09/23/2009 02:49 pm
I'm curious if there's any ballpark range for how much such MLTs would cost to manufacture, from lightweight civilian to the other end of the spectrum of applications.  What would be the cost of the lowest range of SSTO-capable MLT-powered single or two-seater craft; or at least what would the rough range of the propulsion systems' cost be for such a lightweight craft, once manufacturing economies of scale came in effect?

Is the MLTs' expected fabrication well known enough to make such an estimate?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GI-Thruster on 09/23/2009 06:40 pm
I think it's way too early to say, Cinder.  Could be these MLT's and/or UFG's will be able to use very light, cheap materials such as electrostrictive elastomers like 3M glue, or could be we need exotic single crystals in large pieces that cost $5k/cc.  Could be many other things.

Right now, the most expensive issue is the power systems, Z matching and feedback as the systems warm up and the Z changes.  We don't have any reactive systems but they're commonplace and given the resources, that engineering is well understood.  Once you start to do more than research, your costs for such things drop through the floor so that's all good news.

But if we find that we have to have laser sintered PMN-PT diffusion bonded to an exotic liquid metal backplate, then the cost of such a thing will not come down until we're manufacturing these by the thousands. . .so it's impossible to answer your question until we know what real prototypes would look like.  We're still doing pure research; not even looking at commercial systems yet.  It's possible the PZT, PTFE, BaTiO3, etc. being used today will be in prototypes tomorrow, but it's just as likely we'd need single crystals or something else as of yet untried.

No way to know. . .yet.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/23/2009 08:14 pm
What is the power needed for a certain thrust?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 09/23/2009 08:47 pm
Thanks Thruster.

Robotbeat, did you look at the papers posted by StarDrive?  There's a pretty fair detailing of experimental and projected specs.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/23/2009 09:24 pm
What is the projected input power its projected thrust? That's all I want to know.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/24/2009 04:08 am
What is the projected input power its projected thrust? That's all I want to know.

In my most reliable M-E experiment, the Mach-2MHz MLT, the input power was ~7.0 watts RF at 3.8 MHz that yielded a ~5.0 milli-Newton thrust for a thrust to power figure of merit of 7.14x10^-4 Newton/Watt.  And the M-E theory predicts that as the thrust is increased by increasing the M-E drive's operating frequency and voltage, the efficiency of the M-E drive should go up as well as shown in the attached slides originally from my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 presentation.  Will we ever reach this hoped for 1.0 Newton/Watt efficiency that the M-E theory indicates may be obtainable and that I used for my STAIF-2007 paper?  Perhaps, but it may take decades of material science research into capacitor dielectrics optimized for M-E drive applications, just like it took close to a century to perfect the internal combustion piston engine for the automobile industry.  Advancements like this don't come for free...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/25/2009 01:00 am
What is the projected input power its projected thrust? That's all I want to know.

In my most reliable M-E experiment, the Mach-2MHz MLT, the input power was ~7.0 watts RF at 3.8 MHz that yielded a ~5.0 milli-Newton thrust for a thrust to power figure of merit of 7.14x10^-4 Newton/Watt.  And the M-E theory predicts that as the thrust is increased by increasing the M-E drive's operating frequency and voltage, the efficiency of the M-E drive should go up as well as shown in the attached slides originally from my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 presentation.  Will we ever reach this hoped for 1.0 Newton/Watt efficiency that the M-E theory indicates may be obtainable and that I used for my STAIF-2007 paper?  Perhaps, but it may take decades of material science research into capacitor dielectrics optimized for M-E drive applications, just like it took close to a century to perfect the internal combustion piston engine for the automobile industry.  Advancements like this don't come for free...

For comparison, 3x10^-10 Watt / Newton for photon drives. A leap of about 6 orders of magnitude. Even with the current efficiencies, with beamed power it's a viable drive. A 1GW microwave beam could push a 7 tonne payload at 1G. Mass to thrust and cap lifetime is the issue in this case.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/25/2009 01:52 am
For comparison, 3x10^-10 Watt / Newton for photon drives. A leap of about 6 orders of magnitude. Even with the current efficiencies, with beamed power it's a viable drive. A 1GW microwave beam could push a 7 tonne payload at 1G. Mass to thrust and cap lifetime is the issue in this case.

A 1G thruster can take over from the core of a LV.  Secondary thrusters will also be needed to accelerate the vehicle.  At say 1.1G the secondary thrusters are no longer needed.  Even at 0.25G such a drive will reduce the time to Mars.
 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: qraal on 09/26/2009 09:54 am
1 W/1 N would be quite a space-drive. But to do useful propulsion it just has to beat the competition. Consider VASIMR - at full throttle the drive gets 1 N/125 kW. And that's just jet-power, the actual electrical efficiency is worse. If the MLT can get 1 N/kW and keep that up for weeks, then it'll be pure "Buck Rogers" between here and Mars.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: qraal on 09/26/2009 10:05 am
1 W/1 N would be quite a space-drive. But to do useful propulsion it just has to beat the competition. Consider VASIMR - at full throttle the drive gets 1 N/125 kW. And that's just jet-power, the actual electrical efficiency is worse. If the MLT can get 1 N/kW and keep that up for weeks, then it'll be pure "Buck Rogers" between here and Mars.

Actually after a little less than 1 week it'd reach Mars. Now that'd make colonization somewhat easier wouldn't it? With a dry mass of 200 tons and 200 MW power - same power as the high-end VASIMR - then the ship would accelerate at 1 m/s2, doing the trip in 152 hours when Mars is 0.5 AU away.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 09/26/2009 10:30 am
Am I wrong in the impression that that would imply minimally-scaled (IOW cheap) probes to many different targets for the price of and in a fraction of the travel time of a single mission today?  That the more advanced stages of MLT tech (e.g. those needed for SSTO payloads and manned missions) wouldn't be required to push such small probes?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/26/2009 08:50 pm
Am I wrong in the impression that that would imply minimally-scaled (IOW cheap) probes to many different targets for the price of and in a fraction of the travel time of a single mission today?  That the more advanced stages of MLT tech (e.g. those needed for SSTO payloads and manned missions) wouldn't be required to push such small probes?

Cinder:

You are on the right trail.  Any propulsion technology that can provide an order of magnitude improvement in performance in one or more important performance parameters like specific power (Watts/kg), specific thrust AKA Specific Impulse Isp (seconds) or my thrust to power figure of merit Newtons per Watt is a paradigm changer.  Right now the best energy limited ion or plasma rocket engine like VASIMR can provide 1 N/40 kW input power with an Isp of ~5,000 seconds.  If we can build reliable and long-lived M-E drives that produce 1.0 N per 4.0 kW we have a game changer for robotic solar system space drives.  If we can build an M-E drive that can produce that 1.0 N for only 400W of input power, that means we can now produce 10,000 Newtons (2,258 lb-f) for 4.0 Mega-Watts.  That’s not quite a one gee space drive that could lift your Toyota Corolla off the ground,  but when tied to a Lerner 5.0 MW Dense Plasma Fusion (DPF) reactor, we are getting very close to same.  And finally with three orders of magnitude improvement in the M-E drives, we would only need 40 watts to produce that 1.0 Newton of force, so the total power required to lift the Corolla off the ground is now on the order of 500 kW which means that a DPF reactor tied to four 10,000 Newton M-E drives would be one hell of a hot rod that could produce 4 gees of acceleration all the way to Mars and back! 

The foregoing could all happen in a few decades of continuous R&D improvements in the M-E cap materials and drive electronics, provided we can first prove conclusively to all that matter that the M-E is for real and engineerable to that first commercial step of powering station-keeping systems for communication satellites that require a high Isp 1.0 Newton thruster.  So if we can provide that 1.0 Newton thruster with power requirements equal to or less than the current ion drive solutions of ~1.0kW, we are off to the commercial M-E races.  Until then, we are still stuck in the classical chicken and egg quandary where we have to first find the resources that will allow us to push the current M-E data set from its current milli-Newton expressions up to at least 0.1 Newtons and preferably 1.0 Newton levels, while using only 1.0 kW of power.  And to do that we first have to build a test article that can levitate itself before the M-E skeptics will allow themselves to believe.  In the meantime we continue to plow the M-E ground on our own nickel trying to find that combination of ingredients that will get us to that 1.0 Newton goal.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/27/2009 01:23 am
Am I wrong in the impression that that would imply minimally-scaled (IOW cheap) probes to many different targets for the price of and in a fraction of the travel time of a single mission today?  That the more advanced stages of MLT tech (e.g. those needed for SSTO payloads and manned missions) wouldn't be required to push such small probes?

Cinder:

You are on the right trail.  Any propulsion technology that can provide an order of magnitude improvement in performance in one or more important performance parameters like specific power (Watts/kg), specific thrust AKA Specific Impulse Isp (seconds) or my thrust to power figure of merit Newtons per Watt is a paradigm changer.  Right now the best energy limited ion or plasma rocket engine like VASIMR can provide 1 N/40 kW input power with an Isp of ~5,000 seconds.  If we can build reliable and long-lived M-E drives that produce 1.0 N per 4.0 kW we have a game changer for robotic solar system space drives.  If we can build an M-E drive that can produce that 1.0 N for only 400W of input power, that means we can now produce 10,000 Newtons (2,258 lb-f) for 4.0 Mega-Watts.  That’s not quite a one gee space drive that could lift your Toyota Corolla off the ground,  but when tied to a Lerner 5.0 MW Dense Plasma Fusion (DPF) reactor, we are getting very close to same.  And finally with three orders of magnitude improvement in the M-E drives, we would only need 40 watts to produce that 1.0 Newton of force, so the total power required to lift the Corolla off the ground is now on the order of 500 kW which means that a DPF reactor tied to four 10,000 Newton M-E drives would be one hell of a hot rod that could produce 4 gees of acceleration all the way to Mars and back! 

NOTE: 75 horsepower = 100 kW. Thus a 500 kW car engine is 375 hp, which is pretty typical for your top of the line sports cars. Lose the transmission and drive train mass and exchange it for a LOX tank and some wings, and you are flying to orbit. Less than two gallons of gasoline to make orbit (plus the needed LOX).

Before some folks jump on this as fantasy, note I'm ignoring the obvious need for aerodynamics, flight avionics, and a mechanism for engine exhaust to be vented in orbit without generating unwanted thrust (perhaps a heat exchanger/compressor to bottle it as water and dry ice), and various other issues.

The point is that several hundred kW is not really an unusually high amount of power. Many very normal individuals in this world have such powerplants at their disposal.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 09/27/2009 04:46 pm
Thank you Star-Drive.  I'm anxious to hear the next results..
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: qraal on 09/28/2009 11:45 am

NOTE: 75 horsepower = 100 kW. Thus a 500 kW car engine is 375 hp, which is pretty typical for your top of the line sports cars.

au contraire, but 1 metric hp = 75 kgf.m/s  (735.5 W) and an old-school horse-power is 550 ft.lb/s (745.7 W.) Thus 75 hp isn't 100 kW, but just 55.164 kW. That's still pretty respectable. I have heard of a car with 750 hp under the hood. Of course what actually is converted into power on the road is substantially less due to thermodynamic & drive-train inefficiencies. Better efficiencies are possible, but for rather different engine configurations.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 09/28/2009 12:50 pm
At 40 W/N, batteries would probably work for a lot of applications. (i.e. LEO & Moon trips, or even slow Mars trips)


At 1 W/N, solar power plus battery back up could make sense. Thin film solar cells at 1 kW/kg or even older 100 W/kg cells would produce enough power for high thrust in-space applications. 

The arrays would probably be too flimsy for in-atmosphere applications though. Take off on battery power, cruise to 100 km at 1 g, then deploy solar panels.

My BOTE for a 10,000 kg vehicle is (approx.):

100 kW needed for 1 g.
300 kg of Li-ion batteries (100 Wh/kg) to climb for 1000 s at 100 m/s.
100 kg of thin film solar cells. About 500 m^2 or two 25 x 10 m panels, plus support structure.

Effectively unlimited range. (until you run out of sunlight)



Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: BarryKirk on 09/28/2009 04:05 pm
I suspect, when working ME thrusters are developed, the efficiency will vary based on the direction of thrust.

Let me explain what I'm talking about.

There is a certain amount of energy associated with an object in orbit.  I do not believe that a ME will be capable of pushing an object on the ground into orbit using less energy than is associated with the energy of that orbit.

Therefore, although a ME thruster may have some non local characteristics, it will most likely have some local characteristics depending on the gravitational potential well it is operating in.

Just a gut feeling with nothing behind it, other than the feeling that conservation of energy must hold even for a ME thruster.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 09/28/2009 04:21 pm
I suspect, when working ME thrusters are developed, the efficiency will vary based on the direction of thrust.

Let me explain what I'm talking about.

There is a certain amount of energy associated with an object in orbit.  I do not believe that a ME will be capable of pushing an object on the ground into orbit using less energy than is associated with the energy of that orbit.

Therefore, although a ME thruster may have some non local characteristics, it will most likely have some local characteristics depending on the gravitational potential well it is operating in.

Just a gut feeling with nothing behind it, other than the feeling that conservation of energy must hold even for a ME thruster.

Beats me, but have you considered it from the point of view of conservation of energy for the entire Universe?

I'm still sceptical of the theory, but not having done any detailed research, not prepared to dismiss it out of hand.  Would be very happy if it proved out to practical use.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 09/28/2009 04:30 pm
There is a certain amount of energy associated with an object in orbit.  I do not believe that a ME will be capable of pushing an object on the ground into orbit using less energy than is associated with the energy of that orbit.

Remember, kinetic energy is relative.  As an example, from rest the energy associated with 0.1 m/s of delta-V is 0.005 J/kg.  At 7.5 km/s, the energy associated with 0.1 m/s is about 750 J/kg.  The key point is that the lower the velocity difference between an engine and its reaction mass, the lower the required energy output gets.  This is the Isp principle.

The reaction mass is distant matter.  Plenty of distant matter is moving at very close to whatever reasonable speed you want to go.

From the perspective of the drive, this means you do a small amount of positive work on that distant matter, causing it to move slowly in the direction opposite your thrust vector.

From the ground, the distant matter slows down slightly, doing a large amount of positive work on the already fast-moving M-E drive.

Ironically, this means that if you calculate based on exhaust velocity, the Isp of a Mach-effect drive is unimaginably low...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/28/2009 04:32 pm
Yeah, the basic assumptions that the Mach effect thruster acts under just don't seem to have much basis in anything but wishful thinking. I understand how they get around "conservation of momentum" by saying that it is conserved in the whole universe, but it just doesn't fly with my physical intuition. I mean, faith in local conservation of momentum was the only evidence we had for the existence of neutrinos for a couple decades. The locality of conservation laws is the basis of modern physics.

That being said, if the effect works (against all odds), then it'd be awesome. That's why it feels like mostly wishful thinking. Then again, high-temperature superconductors aren't supposed to work theoretically, but they do.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 09/28/2009 04:51 pm
The locality of conservation laws is the basis of modern physics.

How is GI field theory (which is grounded in GRT, by the way) fundamentally less plausible than universal gravitation?  It's not your garden-variety inverse square field, but it's still just field theory.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: BarryKirk on 09/28/2009 05:30 pm
Well... Assuming that the experimental results by Woodward and other is correct, and their is good reason to assume that they are.

Something is going on that mainstream theory is missing.

The real question is what is going on and can we leverage that into a useful technology.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/28/2009 06:24 pm

NOTE: 75 horsepower = 100 kW. Thus a 500 kW car engine is 375 hp, which is pretty typical for your top of the line sports cars.

au contraire, but 1 metric hp = 75 kgf.m/s  (735.5 W) and an old-school horse-power is 550 ft.lb/s (745.7 W.) Thus 75 hp isn't 100 kW, but just 55.164 kW. That's still pretty respectable. I have heard of a car with 750 hp under the hood. Of course what actually is converted into power on the road is substantially less due to thermodynamic & drive-train inefficiencies. Better efficiencies are possible, but for rather different engine configurations.

Sorry guys, but you are both in error.  Using the average of your own conversion factors for converting watts to horse-power, we get ~740 Watts/h-p.   We then calculate that 100,000 Watts / 740 Watts/hp = 135.15 h-p. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/28/2009 06:27 pm
You know, these conversion factors don't really matter when we're nonchalantly throwing out improvements of three orders of magnitude.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/29/2009 03:21 am
You know, these conversion factors don't really matter when we're nonchalantly throwing out improvements of three orders of magnitude.

Very true!  However the engineer in me just couldn't let it pass without correction.  :)

BTW if folks are having trouble wrapping themselves around the idea of nonlocality when it comes to M-E energy and momentum conservation, perhaps they need to spend some time thinking about QM entanglements and John Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM.  In fact, take a look at the presentations at Cramer's 75th Birthday Symposium/Program section and the Next Big Future's article on Cramer's retrocausal experiment.  If this exeriment is successful, it would butress Woodward's arguments a great deal.

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~lisa/CramerSymposium/

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/john-cramers-retrocausal-experiments.html

You see, this is where QM and GRT are already starting to meet and this juncture could supply a ready explanation for how the M-E transfers energy and momentum effectively instantaneously via gravinertial waves to/from the rest of the casually connected mass/energy in the universe...

Edit: A Follow up note.  Have you ever wondered what I really mean when I say "causally connected universe"?  If Dr. Cramer's retrocausality idea is correct, which implies that his Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct, then at the moment of the big bang ~13.7 billion years ago when all the hydrogen and helium ions in THIS universe were created, their inertial masses could have been QM entangled never to be pulled asunder.  This QM reality could be at the heart of Mach’s principle and it could be why accelerating a local mass can backward accelerate all the rest of the mass/energy in the universe in near zero time.

BTW, we may still have to evoke a hyperdimensional (greater than 4D) explanations for the origins of QM entanglements as envisioned by 11D String Theoreticians, and as noted by Dr. Ruth Kastner in her Cramer Symposium “Quantum Liar” presentation, see below summary page.  I.e., energy & momentum transfer interactions “are transfer points of energy resulting from atemporal, a-spatial transactions”.  Thus we return to GRT’s concept of spacetime where past, present and future all coexist equally together in an atemporal and a-spatial manner.  So as Einstein once said; “People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

"1.  Photons do not move in trajectories, in acorpuscular sense, along one or the other arm of the MZI. They are transfer points of energy, etc. resulting from atemporal, a-spatial transactions.

2.  Transactions can project out a subsystem (e.g., absorption by one or the other atom)

3.  or, they can involve the entire system (detectionat D and measurement of spin along y)"
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 09/30/2009 02:40 am
You know, these conversion factors don't really matter when we're nonchalantly throwing out improvements of three orders of magnitude.

Isn't it 4 orders of magnitude over what has been demonstrated?

And that actually puts it currently into the "less technically certain than the space elevator" column, as that only requires a 2 order of magnitude improvement in demonstrated materiel properties like tensile strength.

Anyway, it does seem kind of premature to assume that expending lots of resources in the direction of capacitor research could necessarily produce these results.

We've been looking for a similar increase in tokamok compression factors for about that long at a far higher cost and have been unable to achieve despite the resources spent.

It's not exactly like there's currently a dearth of research into improving capacitor dielectics, admittedly in a divergent direction though.

I'm not saying the research shouldn't be done --it's astounding to me that we're not doing more basic research in high-energy but accessible regions like this, where there a gaping holes in our knowledge.

But there's nothing to say that the 1:1 T:W Mach effect thruster won't always be another 20 years into the future just like the 1:1 Qin to Qout tokamok fusion machine.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 09/30/2009 04:24 am
You know, these conversion factors don't really matter when we're nonchalantly throwing out improvements of three orders of magnitude.

Isn't it 4 orders of magnitude over what has been demonstrated?

And that actually puts it currently into the "less technically certain than the space elevator" column, as that only requires a 2 order of magnitude improvement in demonstrated materiel properties like tensile strength.

Anyway, it does seem kind of premature to assume that expending lots of resources in the direction of capacitor research could necessarily produce these results.

You haven't been looking at the equations? The chief gain is not from boosting cap K, it's from increasing the frequency of the driver to above the MHz range, refining it and getting the kinks out.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/30/2009 04:55 am
You know, these conversion factors don't really matter when we're nonchalantly throwing out improvements of three orders of magnitude.

Isn't it 4 orders of magnitude over what has been demonstrated?

And that actually puts it currently into the "less technically certain than the space elevator" column, as that only requires a 2 order of magnitude improvement in demonstrated materiel properties like tensile strength.

Anyway, it does seem kind of premature to assume that expending lots of resources in the direction of capacitor research could necessarily produce these results.

You haven't been looking at the equations? The chief gain is not from boosting cap K, it's from increasing the frequency of the driver to above the MHz range, refining it and getting the kinks out.

Actually if one could come up with a dielectric with a WELL BALANCED set of cap dielectric parameters for the M-E MLTs, like a relative permittivity of ~1,000, a magnetic permeability of ~20, a well controlled piezoelectric response, a dissipation factor of less than 0.5% at 10 MHz in a dielectric that had a 1,000 hour or greater operating lifetime under full power conditions, we would be ready to start building levitating M-E test articles.  As noted, nobody in the high energy cap storage business is thinking about this kind of cap parameter mix until we show them it’s worth their time and money to do so.  And to do that we first have to make a convincing M-E demonstration using COTS parts and a much more optimized MLT or rotary M-E drive design and that will just take a lot of time (years) using our existing resources.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 09/30/2009 08:49 pm
You know, these conversion factors don't really matter when we're nonchalantly throwing out improvements of three orders of magnitude.

Isn't it 4 orders of magnitude over what has been demonstrated?

And that actually puts it currently into the "less technically certain than the space elevator" column, as that only requires a 2 order of magnitude improvement in demonstrated materiel properties like tensile strength.

Anyway, it does seem kind of premature to assume that expending lots of resources in the direction of capacitor research could necessarily produce these results.

You haven't been looking at the equations? The chief gain is not from boosting cap K, it's from increasing the frequency of the driver to above the MHz range, refining it and getting the kinks out.

Actually if one could come up with a dielectric with a WELL BALANCED set of cap dielectric parameters for the M-E MLTs, like a relative permittivity of ~1,000, a magnetic permeability of ~20, a well controlled piezoelectric response, a dissipation factor of less than 0.5% at 10 MHz in a dielectric that had a 1,000 hour or greater operating lifetime under full power conditions, we would be ready to start building levitating M-E test articles.  As noted, nobody in the high energy cap storage business is thinking about this kind of cap parameter mix until we show them it’s worth their time and money to do so.  And to do that we first have to make a convincing M-E demonstration using COTS parts and a much more optimized MLT or rotary M-E drive design and that will just take a lot of time (years) using our existing resources.

Understand all that. Unfortunately, it's a bit like looking for the high-temperature, high-current, high-permitivity superconductor, for which there is a pretty steep entry barrier and at existing operating requirements (i.e. low temperature) not yet a significant market.

Of course if Polywell or a similar fusion effort requiring SC magnets pans out, that is something that would change drastically, because that set of superconductive materiel requirements suddenly becomes a  technology with the killer app of fusion.

My point is that rarely do we make 3 or 4 order-of magnitude leaps in material properties except by utter and complete accident.

Superconducting super permeable capacitor anyone?

Of course I guess the first step is looking...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/30/2009 08:56 pm
Even at liquid nitrogen temperatures, I think there is a market for superconductors for power transmission... But my opinion is obviously a minority. For all the talk about efficiency, we aren't willing to put any capital into changing power-lines to this sort of technology, which could drastically reduce line-lossage. It's pretty much just because of high capital cost. Capital has an artificially high opportunity cost when you have the financial services industry fraudulently claiming guaranteed 15-20% rate of return...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 10/02/2009 02:53 am
This research bears a lot in common with Polywell in terms of the skepticism with which most greet the implications if it is actually feasible. Where it differs is that it relies on a novel scientific theory whereas the IEC fusion is not only classically understandable, it doesn't challenge any theoretical physicists with new (or rather familiar old)  conceptions of the laws of physics.

I mean whereas with Polywell most just say the engineering won't work as expected (cross field transport or excesive brehmstrahhlung radiation or excessive electron Maxwellianization to name a few) to produce the agreed conditions that cause fusion...whereas this M-E concept challenges the entire, broad cutting edge of theroetical physics.

And, to top it all off you have to pull a few engineering rabbits out of hats to get the thing to have a useful purpose or perhaps even to have an unequivocal evidence.

Clearly you all are on the right track with first proving the theory, then worry about the practical engineering.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/02/2009 12:04 pm
Cuddihy:

"Clearly you all are on the right track with first proving the theory, then worry about the practical engineering."

What would you consider a convincing proof of principle test of the M-E?  Woodward's 2009 rotary data appears to be convincing to those who understand the experiment and the pitfalls of same, (the electrostriction issue), but I think an uninitiated scientist could have heart burn with it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 10/02/2009 09:00 pm
Cuddihy:

"Clearly you all are on the right track with first proving the theory, then worry about the practical engineering."

What would you consider a convincing proof of principle test of the M-E?  Woodward's 2009 rotary data appears to be convincing to those who understand the experiment and the pitfalls of same, (the electrostriction issue), but I think an uninitiated scientist could have heart burn with it.

Oh, levitation in a vacuum chamber should do it.  :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/02/2009 09:05 pm
Cuddihy:

"Clearly you all are on the right track with first proving the theory, then worry about the practical engineering."

What would you consider a convincing proof of principle test of the M-E?  Woodward's 2009 rotary data appears to be convincing to those who understand the experiment and the pitfalls of same, (the electrostriction issue), but I think an uninitiated scientist could have heart burn with it.

Oh, levitation in a vacuum chamber should do it.  :)

Even levitated on a reduced-gravity vomit-comet trajectory would convince me, as long as it was well-scrutinized and reproducible by third parties.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 10/02/2009 10:39 pm
Cuddihy:

"Clearly you all are on the right track with first proving the theory, then worry about the practical engineering."

What would you consider a convincing proof of principle test of the M-E?  Woodward's 2009 rotary data appears to be convincing to those who understand the experiment and the pitfalls of same, (the electrostriction issue), but I think an uninitiated scientist could have heart burn with it.

Well I think you folks are on the right path: keep pushing the envelope with the materials you have available and focus on reducing or eliminating potential losses, biases, and sources of error in measurements until you can attain a more convincing spread between observed M-E effect and the more mundane sources of force. Personally I'm one of those uninitiated who doesn't know anything about electrostriction but the fact that it's the same order of magnitude as the observed effects would make it tough for me to accept a new theory of inertia based on only the published results to date without me also becoming on expert on electrostriction.

For Polywell, it took Bussard and Krall figuring out the design philosophy of aiding rather than preventing electron recirculation before they could obtain low enough electron loss to get convincing levels of electron containment and then well depth. i.e. if they hadn't gone to conformal cans on WB-6 and then obtained neutron counts at those lower potentials, it is likely that Bussard's Google video talk would have been nothing but an interesting coda to an iconoclast's career. Instead it caused enough notice and impact to revive the Navy's interest in the idea and subsequently obtain funding.

Unforunately your team will likely have to delve much deeper into the engineering improvement just to prove that the physics is correct. The credibility level to aim at is the physics knowledge of the average college sophmore BS in engineering or science.

This means you focus on the familiar. i.e. focus on the torque pendulum methods because every one who took physics understands cavendish's experiment. That might mean trying to improve to the point where you get a visible deflection. Or at least where the M-E effects are 4 or more times the electrostrictive and piezoelectric forces, reliably.

You would know where the low hanging fruit for effort vs. improvement in output would be.

tom
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/03/2009 03:43 am
Tom & Crew:

Goods points all and yes the most convincing M-E demonstration would be to levitate a self-contained/battery powered MLT or M-E rotary test article under remote RF or IR control into the conference room, land it, take off several times and then float it out in say a five minute time period.  However our current level of mastery of the M-E is not up to this levitating task yet, so Tom's torque pendulum or ~2 meter ballistics pendulum will probably have to do for a display mechanics for the next generation M-E test articles.  And I assume that we would also have to be able to generate a high enough thrust to weight ratio in the test article so it can push itself at least a couple of inches off the pendulum's null or at rest position for the duration of the power pulse to the MLT before we could convince anyone we weren't just dealing with wishful thinking. 

Now if we insist on a self contained and remote controlled test article needed to rule out a number of false positive candidate effects, I don't see a battery powered MLT test article coming in at less than 500-to-1,000 grams depending on the required drive electronics and its cooling requirements.  With that kind of test article mass, we will need at least 0.1 Newton (~10 gram-force) of thrust to get that much deflection on a 2-meter pendulum.  I think that could be doable with existing High-K caps being run at say 14 MHz and a few hundred volts peak on the cap-ring, or use Low-K caps if we push the frequency up to 28 MHz and its cap-ring voltage up to at least 10kV-p.  However, we still need to get the MLT's cap-ring bulk acceleration levels for either case up into the 100s of gees at the same time and that may take some very creative engineering and resources to accomplish, especially for the MLT. 

BTW, I found out last weekend that my 52 MHz MLT-2009 PTFE test article that I had reported on earlier this year on this forum turned out to be a real dud.  That is because of all its as-built parasitic capacitances and resulting losses that are killing off the counted on resonant behavior needed to reach the high voltages required to express the M-E in a Low-K PTFE cap-ring using my power limited 100W, 52 MHz RF supply.   It looks like I will have to lower its operating frequency and/or rebuild the MLT core to mitigate these parasitic losses before I can get up the high operating voltages I need to see any M-E effects.  And that is assuming I have the bulk acceleration problem solved in this test article, which is a big IF.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 10/03/2009 06:18 pm
Why would a levitator need to be battery powered?

As long as it is clearly not being supported by the power cables.

One that has identical performance in air & in a vacuum ( to discount ion wind) would be convincing.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/03/2009 09:45 pm
Why would a levitator need to be battery powered?

As long as it is clearly not being supported by the power cables.

One that has identical performance in air & in a vacuum ( to discount ion wind) would be convincing.

Using a self-contained battery powered test article takes away the last possibility of some type of back reaction masquerading as real thrust that was occurring through the test article’s remote power leads.

And yes, running the test article in vacuum verses air would be another verification method, but that could be simulated by just running the test article in a Faraday Shield can that would first kill off any thrust producing ion wind circulation, and also electrically shield the test equipment from stray EMI from the test article.  That is the way I built the Mach-2MHz MLT, but that test article was still powered remotely instead of being self-contained.

BTW, if the thrust signature is large enough, and by large enough I mean at least 0.1 Newton (~10 gram-force) in size, most of these alternate explanations for the thrust production sources become too small to be credible, especially if the test article is run in a Faraday Shield enclosure and/or in a vacuum chamber at 1x10^-6 Torr.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 10/04/2009 03:18 pm
Ion engines will work inside a Faraday cage.  It only blocks fields from outside.  You really want a vacuum chamber to be sure.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 10/04/2009 05:04 pm
2D travel over an air hockey table isn't enough?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/04/2009 05:29 pm
Ion engines will work inside a Faraday cage.  It only blocks fields from outside.  You really want a vacuum chamber to be sure.

Have you ever seen a helicopter stall close to the ground due to air recirculation around its main rotor?  In a like manner an ion wind lifter will kill its lift if you put it in a small enough box that creates a recirculating air mass flow that kills its lift.  The same goes for any thrust producing device that is put in a small enough CLOSED box, with the size and shape of the box being the key issues, because when the reverse propellant mass flow circulating around the engine equals the outgoing mass flow from the engine, its net thrust goes to zero.

Edit:  I added the word CLOSED above because if an ion engine in a vacuum chamber has active vacuum pumping going on during its run, any recirculating mass flows established around the engine will be siphoned off by the vacuum pumps.  In a related manner if a rocket engine was placed in a closed container it would pressurize it while setting up its mass flow recirculation pattern, which would no doubt stall the engine's combustion process when the internal box pressure reached the operating pressure of the rocket.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/04/2009 05:37 pm
2D travel over an air hockey table isn't enough?

If you mount the M-E test article in a Faraday shield can sized so that it will kill all normal mass flow rate related thrust signatures, an air hockey table would do very nicely IMO. 

BTW, the directed M-E gravinertial flux is not affected very much by nearby barriers because its effective wavelength is much longer than the barrier thickness presented by a normal thickness Faraday shield or standard glass or stainless steel vacuum chamber walls.   
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 10/05/2009 04:05 am
Tom & Crew:

Goods points all and yes the most convincing M-E demonstration would be to levitate a self-contained/battery powered MLT or M-E rotary test article under remote RF or IR control into the conference room, land it, take off several times and then float it out in say a five minute time period.  However our current level of mastery of the M-E is not up to this levitating task yet, so Tom's torque pendulum or ~2 meter ballistics pendulum will probably have to do for a display mechanics for the next generation M-E test articles.  And I assume that we would also have to be able to generate a high enough thrust to weight ratio in the test article so it can push itself at least a couple of inches off the pendulum's null or at rest position for the duration of the power pulse to the MLT before we could convince anyone we weren't just dealing with wishful thinking. 

Now if we insist on a self contained and remote controlled test article needed to rule out a number of false positive candidate effects, I don't see a battery powered MLT test article coming in at less than 500-to-1,000 grams depending on the required drive electronics and its cooling requirements.  With that kind of test article mass, we will need at least 0.1 Newton (~10 gram-force) of thrust to get that much deflection on a 2-meter pendulum.  I think that could be doable with existing High-K caps being run at say 14 MHz and a few hundred volts peak on the cap-ring, or use Low-K caps if we push the frequency up to 28 MHz and its cap-ring voltage up to at least 10kV-p.  However, we still need to get the MLT's cap-ring bulk acceleration levels for either case up into the 100s of gees at the same time and that may take some very creative engineering and resources to accomplish, especially for the MLT. 

BTW, I found out last weekend that my 52 MHz MLT-2009 PTFE test article that I had reported on earlier this year on this forum turned out to be a real dud.  That is because of all its as-built parasitic capacitances and resulting losses that are killing off the counted on resonant behavior needed to reach the high voltages required to express the M-E in a Low-K PTFE cap-ring using my power limited 100W, 52 MHz RF supply.   It looks like I will have to lower its operating frequency and/or rebuild the MLT core to mitigate these parasitic losses before I can get up the high operating voltages I need to see any M-E effects.  And that is assuming I have the bulk acceleration problem solved in this test article, which is a big IF.

BTW, one thing I don't get -- it seems like a lot of sources of error come in from the effects of different dielectrics like electrostrictive effects. If you had a big capacitor without dielectric (vacuum), obviously you couldn't put as much power through it, but electrostriction goes away, permeability is no longer an issue, voltage can be arbitrarily high,etc.

I mean the power issue alone makes it no go for useful purposes, but for measurement, why doesn't this work?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 10/05/2009 08:03 am
In a like manner an ion wind lifter will kill its lift if you put it in a small enough box that creates a recirculating air mass flow that kills its lift.

Okay, but it won't kill ALL lift, and you've got to convince reviewers that they're seeing a really exotic physical effect instead of a mundane one they already know is present.

If you had a big capacitor without dielectric (vacuum), obviously you couldn't put as much power through it, but electrostriction goes away, permeability is no longer an issue, voltage can be arbitrarily high,etc.

I mean the power issue alone makes it no go for useful purposes, but for measurement, why doesn't this work?

If I'm not mistaken, the device needs to operate on the atoms in the dielectric in order to oscillate their mass.  If there isn't a dielectric, there's nothing to oscillate.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/05/2009 03:02 pm
In a like manner an ion wind lifter will kill its lift if you put it in a small enough box that creates a recirculating air mass flow that kills its lift.

Okay, but it won't kill ALL lift, and you've got to convince reviewers that they're seeing a really exotic physical effect instead of a mundane one they already know is present.

If you had a big capacitor without dielectric (vacuum), obviously you couldn't put as much power through it, but electrostriction goes away, permeability is no longer an issue, voltage can be arbitrarily high,etc.

I mean the power issue alone makes it no go for useful purposes, but for measurement, why doesn't this work?

If I'm not mistaken, the device needs to operate on the atoms in the dielectric in order to oscillate their mass.  If there isn't a dielectric, there's nothing to oscillate.

"Okay, but it won't kill ALL lift, and you've got to convince reviewers that they're seeing a really exotic physical effect instead of a mundane one they already know is present."

Yea, OK but that ups the price of the experiment by at least the ~$12k needed for the 1x10^-6 vacuum system.  And if I don't go that low in pressure, I get into glow discharge problems with the test article.

"If I'm not mistaken, the device needs to operate on the atoms in the dielectric in order to oscillate their mass.  If there isn't a dielectric, there's nothing to oscillate."

That is correct per Woodward.  If the mass or vacuum density fluctuations are actually occuring in the space and E-& B-fields around the ions though, then a vacuum dielectric may work, (See Sonny White's STAIF-2007 presentation posted in this forum.).  However, to see measurable forces in a 2-meter ballistics pendulum, it takes running the cap cavity at ~2.45 GHz with ac peak voltages measured in the thousands of volts.  Such an experiment is in the works by White.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 2.71 on 10/05/2009 06:17 pm
@Star-Drive

I know I'm a little late on this response, but what would the problem be with using vacuum caps? Like these:

http://www.jenningstech.com/pdf/cap/vacfix/MMHC-450-50S.pdf
http://www.jenningstech.com/ps/jen/caplist.cgi

I tried scanning back through the thread, and I don't recall if the M-E effect relies on a dialectric with mass. I seem to remember that it does.

Although, if it does, then comparing results between the vacuum cap and a ceramic cap could be another way of demonstrating the effect, right? In other words, using a vacuum cap as a control.

2.71

You know, these conversion factors don't really matter when we're nonchalantly throwing out improvements of three orders of magnitude.

Isn't it 4 orders of magnitude over what has been demonstrated?

And that actually puts it currently into the "less technically certain than the space elevator" column, as that only requires a 2 order of magnitude improvement in demonstrated materiel properties like tensile strength.

Anyway, it does seem kind of premature to assume that expending lots of resources in the direction of capacitor research could necessarily produce these results.

You haven't been looking at the equations? The chief gain is not from boosting cap K, it's from increasing the frequency of the driver to above the MHz range, refining it and getting the kinks out.

Actually if one could come up with a dielectric with a WELL BALANCED set of cap dielectric parameters for the M-E MLTs, like a relative permittivity of ~1,000, a magnetic permeability of ~20, a well controlled piezoelectric response, a dissipation factor of less than 0.5% at 10 MHz in a dielectric that had a 1,000 hour or greater operating lifetime under full power conditions, we would be ready to start building levitating M-E test articles.  As noted, nobody in the high energy cap storage business is thinking about this kind of cap parameter mix until we show them it’s worth their time and money to do so.  And to do that we first have to make a convincing M-E demonstration using COTS parts and a much more optimized MLT or rotary M-E drive design and that will just take a lot of time (years) using our existing resources.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2009 06:30 pm
Why would the caps need matter in the dielectric? Energy has mass (as seen in the fact that a proton weighs much more than the sum of its quarks), so a vacuum cap that stores energy would have a mass fluctuation (assuming the Woodwardian theory is correct). Prove to me why this isn't the case!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 2.71 on 10/05/2009 06:34 pm
My previous post was a question, so no proof is necessary.

2.71
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/05/2009 07:02 pm
Why would the caps need matter in the dielectric? Energy has mass (as seen in the fact that a proton weighs much more than the sum of its quarks), so a vacuum cap that stores energy would have a mass fluctuation (assuming the Woodwardian theory is correct). Prove to me why this isn't the case!

Well, I have to modify my original statement on further reflection in answer to your above vacuum assertion.  To start off, if we ask the question does the energy flux in the E- and B-fields contained in between the electrodes of a vacuum capacitor have ANY inertial mass to fluctuate, what is the answer?  On first pass one could easily say like I did in this thread that hell no it’s a featureless & massless vacuum!  However, per the tenants of GRT all mass and energy concentrations should be able to bend spacetime to one degree or another, and therefore even dilute energy concentrations in the guise of weak E&M fields should have some inertial mass to fluctuate, but it’s going to be a whole lot smaller, (that 1/c^2 thing), than a massive dielectric being in its place.  So in reality it all boils down to how much mass fluctuations one can obtain from a diffuse energy concentration provided by the E&M fields in the vacuum cap, verses a much more concentrated form of mass/energy called mass.  I suppose that if the d^2E/dt^2 power flux and bulk accelerations are large enough, even a vacuum cap should be able to sing the M-E.  The next question is under what operating conditions will such an M-E device generate a detectable mass fluctuations signal?  Back to the drawing boards…
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 2.71 on 10/05/2009 07:12 pm
Ok, but how about using vacuum caps as experimental controls to support your results? Wouldn't the difference between performance of the two dialectrics give insight into the process, and help sway skeptics (provided the results are as predicted, of course)?

2.71
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/05/2009 10:15 pm
Ok, but how about using vacuum caps as experimental controls to support your results? Wouldn't the difference between performance of the two dialectrics give insight into the process, and help sway skeptics (provided the results are as predicted, of course)?

2.71

 Yes, it's possible to use the vacuum caps as controls for high-k caps for M-E drives, provided the vacuum cap has a similar form factor to the high-k cap, so the MLT's B-field flux through each would be close to the same.  However, for MLTs, the Lorentz force is proportional to the ionic velocity of the dielectric's ions in the dielectric crossed with the applied B-field, but in a vacuum cap there are no ions to accelerated in a GRT world at least, so whether the crossed B-field would affect the E- and B-fields in the same vxB manner is an unknown to me at the moment.  One way to avoid this issue would be to run these vacuum caps and the high-k dielectric caps in a rotary M-E drive that doesn't rely on the vxB Lorentz force for its bulk acceleration.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 10/05/2009 10:20 pm
Ok, but how about using vacuum caps as experimental controls to support your results? Wouldn't the difference between performance of the two dialectrics give insight into the process, and help sway skeptics (provided the results are as predicted, of course)?

2.71

the problem with this is, how do you set a vacuum capacitor equal to a dielectric capacitor as a control? There's basically nothing common between a vacuum capacitor and a dialectric, they would require entirely different setups...hmm...
It's a puzzler...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 10/06/2009 03:36 am
May I point out that the ME thruster itself doesn't have to be in vacuum? It could be in a sealed container at 1 atm, placed in a vacuum chamber.

If there are any dielectric or other advantages to higher pressure or non-air atmosphere, that could be explored too.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/06/2009 07:43 am

"If I'm not mistaken, the device needs to operate on the atoms in the dielectric in order to oscillate their mass.  If there isn't a dielectric, there's nothing to oscillate."

That is correct per Woodward.  If the mass or vacuum density fluctuations are actually occuring in the space and E-& B-fields around the ions though, then a vacuum dielectric may work, (See Sonny White's STAIF-2007 presentation posted in this forum.).  However, to see measurable forces in a 2-meter ballistics pendulum, it takes running the cap cavity at ~2.45 GHz with ac peak voltages measured in the thousands of volts.  Such an experiment is in the works by White.


I'm curious though. Anyone familliar with semiconductor electronics knows that some types of transistors dont move ions or electrons around so much as 'holes' in the semi conductor matrix.

It should actually be much easier to vary the mass of electrons than of ionized atoms, because the charge acting on the electron will vary its velocity proportionate to the charge. Thus you should be able to establish an electromagnetically asymmetric electron centrifuge chamber where the electrons vary speed from high on one side of the centrifuge orbit to slow on the opposite so that the electrons move in and out of a relativistic velocity range, thus varying their masses according to general relativity from one side to the other. This will produce a thrust vector in the direction adjacent to the side where the electrons are higher mass due to higher relativistic velocity.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/06/2009 10:36 am
Trouble is, electrons don't mass a lot and you won't get a lot of thrust...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/06/2009 12:05 pm
May I point out that the ME thruster itself doesn't have to be in vacuum? It could be in a sealed container at 1 atm, placed in a vacuum chamber.

If there are any dielectric or other advantages to higher pressure or non-air atmosphere, that could be explored too.

If a self-contained, battery-powered M-E drive is rigidly attached into a hermetically sealed Faraday shield can where no accelerated gases or ions can escape it, and there are no power or control leads going into or out of the Faraday shield that could ionize the ambient air around them or the can, save an optical window in the can where optical control and data signals can be passed, there should by definition be no possibility of extraneous thrust signatures being generated from ion wind or any other mundane Newtonian source other than the pico-Newton forces generated by the optical control signals themselves.  We can say this because the net regular mass flow rate crossing the Faraday shield boundary is ZERO.  If there is NO normal delta mass flow rate going across this system boundary, no thrust can be produced per conservation of momentum.  And since my thrust measurement system only has a resolution of tens of micro-Newtons, I don't care about extraneous pico-Newton grade control signals.  Given these constraints, why do I need a vacuum system again? 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 10/06/2009 04:11 pm
Differential heating of the Faraday can.  Solvable with thermometers?

Magnetic effects.  You might want to have a magnetic shield around the assembly.  Not that this would change if you had a vacuum chamber, although a steel vacuum chamber might do on its own...

Best solution is to get the thrust up to the point where none of the mundane explanations make any sense.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/06/2009 05:39 pm
Differential heating of the Faraday can.  Solvable with thermometers?

Magnetic effects.  You might want to have a magnetic shield around the assembly.  Not that this would change if you had a vacuum chamber, although a steel vacuum chamber might do on its own...

Best solution is to get the thrust up to the point where none of the mundane explanations make any sense.

Mitigating differential heating of the hermetically sealed Faraday Shield can M-E test article would be taken care of by the use of a copper heat spreader in the can and locating the high heat sources in the center of the can.  Mounting the can on its side for a test and then vertically would also add another control for this issue.

Minimizing magnetic interactions with outside magnetic sources or ferromagnetic materials are taken care of by using a steel Faraday Can with a magnetic permeability of at least 200.  If needed, a secondary layer of mu-metal (mu=10,000 or higher) can be mounted inside the can.  That is how I built the Mach-2MHz MLT by using a steel MinWax polish can sans the mu-metal layer and of course the MinWax polish.

Agreed, the best solution is to maximize the thrust output above 10.0 milli-Newton and preferably 0.1 Newton or higher.  If I can get to that thrust level with all the noted controls in place, for me that's going to be as good as it gets unless someone is willing to donate the use of their  <1x10^-6 Torr vacuum chamber for a few data runs.  Being a self-contained unit should make this vacuum test relatively straight forward except for thermal issues.  I’d also be willing to run this self-contained M-E drive unit on my son’s air hockey table with videos of same, though for the first go around, it will only be a one axis thruster.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 2.71 on 10/06/2009 07:02 pm
Ok, but how about using vacuum caps as experimental controls to support your results? Wouldn't the difference between performance of the two dialectrics give insight into the process, and help sway skeptics (provided the results are as predicted, of course)?

2.71

 Yes, it's possible to use the vacuum caps as controls for high-k caps for M-E drives, provided the vacuum cap has a similar form factor to the high-k cap, so the MLT's B-field flux through each would be close to the same.  However, for MLTs, the Lorentz force is proportional to the ionic velocity of the dielectric's ions in the dielectric crossed with the applied B-field, but in a vacuum cap there are no ions to accelerated in a GRT world at least, so whether the crossed B-field would affect the E- and B-fields in the same vxB manner is an unknown to me at the moment.  One way to avoid this issue would be to run these vacuum caps and the high-k dielectric caps in a rotary M-E drive that doesn't rely on the vxB Lorentz force for its bulk acceleration.

Thanks. What I was getting at was that if you run the same experimental setup two times (once with the vacuum cap and once with a ceramic cap) and the thrust was measurable with ceramic but NOT with vacuum, then that goes at least part of the way to refuting claims that the thrust originates from non-capacitor related phenomena.

Of course, vacuum caps are relatively large, which would require designing around them. So this is possibly not feasible.

But if this can be easily crowbar-ed into an existing test article, do you think that it could help?

2.71
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 10/07/2009 03:52 am
I just had another odd notion along the same line: instead of normal capacitor at vacuum or with dielectric, what if you used a gas-filled canister (like a gamma flux detector) as the load? The gas wouldn't provide a lot of mass for the fluctuation but with a noble gas at the right voltage and pressure, you would get a rapid ionization, cascade as it discharges, then a quench, over each cycle.

Add to that charge effect a gas mass-oscillation as the positively charged gas ions rush the anode, which since it is A/C is switching each half-cycle. So maybe no piezo needed?

Anyway, not sure if this would work as described but worth thinking about?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Danny Dot on 10/07/2009 04:03 am
I have an idea for y'all.  How much power does a reasonable thruster need.  How about a small payload with solar cells to run a test unit on orbit for a while.  This should make it easy to measure any thrust.

Also, if the current thrust level is so low it is hard to even measure, you are a long long way from making a practical thruster. 

But good luck.  I hope y'all are right.  Going after a measurement is the right idea.  Can I have a portion of the Nobel Prize in Physic when you can provide a repeatable measurement?

Danny Deger
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/07/2009 04:12 am
Trouble is, electrons don't mass a lot and you won't get a lot of thrust...

Well that depends on how many electrons you are handling plus the mass differential between high speed and low speed sides. If the solid capacitors dielectric atoms can only be varied in mass by 0.001%, and you can instead move 1000 electrons with a mass variance of 50% as they go from .1 c to .999 c from one side of the chamber to the other, and an electron is 0.0005 AMU at rest (thus becoming 0.001 AMU at .999c) then 1000 electrons exhibit a mass variance of 1 AMU per cycle.

Because you can move electrons much faster than ions, then you should be able to achieve MUCH higher cycle frequencies with the electrons in the chamber than you could with ions in a dielectric. As the charts that Paul has posted here indicate, higher the frequency, the higher the efficiency and higher the thrust.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/07/2009 11:06 pm
I have an idea for y'all.  How much power does a reasonable thruster need.  How about a small payload with solar cells to run a test unit on orbit for a while.  This should make it easy to measure any thrust.

Also, if the current thrust level is so low it is hard to even measure, you are a long long way from making a practical thruster. 

But good luck.  I hope y'all are right.  Going after a measurement is the right idea.  Can I have a portion of the Nobel Prize in Physic when you can provide a repeatable measurement?

Danny Deger

"I have an idea for y'all.  How much power does a reasonable thruster need.  How about a small payload with solar cells to run a test unit on orbit for a while.  This should make it easy to measure any thrust."

That would be great!  However who is going to pay for this little space junket?  Even assuming the Falcon-1X is still only asking $10 million for a flight, that is so far out of our league as to be obscene.  And even a suborbital flight on say Spaceship-2 that provides only ~5 minutes of zero gee time runs over $200K per seat and considering it would take two seats with one for the operator and one for the experiment, we are talking close to $1/2 million dollars for that very precious five minutes.  No, I think I'll stick to air hockey tables when the time is right.

As to measuring small thrust levels, my Mach-2MHz had a maximum thrust of close to 5.0 milli-Newton, which is more than good enough to demonstrate the effect if people could be persuaded that all other mundane error sources had been removed from it.  I can now see there is some legitimate complaints about how I performed that experiment, so I'll try it again, but this time doubling the number of caps and build it into a self contained, hermetically sealed and battery powered test article and see how that fairs. 

Nobel prize?  If anyone deserves that honor it’s Jim Woodward, but I’m not holding my breath on that score either considering how Einstein was treated.  (His Nobel Prize was for the photoelectric effect and NOT his relativity papers be they special or general.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/07/2009 11:17 pm
Trouble is, electrons don't mass a lot and you won't get a lot of thrust...

Well that depends on how many electrons you are handling plus the mass differential between high speed and low speed sides. If the solid capacitors dielectric atoms can only be varied in mass by 0.001%, and you can instead move 1000 electrons with a mass variance of 50% as they go from .1 c to .999 c from one side of the chamber to the other, and an electron is 0.0005 AMU at rest (thus becoming 0.001 AMU at .999c) then 1000 electrons exhibit a mass variance of 1 AMU per cycle.

Because you can move electrons much faster than ions, then you should be able to achieve MUCH higher cycle frequencies with the electrons in the chamber than you could with ions in a dielectric. As the charts that Paul has posted here indicate, higher the frequency, the higher the efficiency and higher the thrust.

Mike:

What would you suggest building?  Since we are dealing with electrons, I assume we would have to use some type of vacuum tube arrangement with a hot cathode emitter and then some type of capacitor arrangement for the energy storage element where the electrons would accumulate during each half cycle.  We would then apply an external B-field to create the Lorentz force rectification signal.  Past that I’m not seeing it yet, nor all the pitfalls along the way either.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 10/08/2009 03:52 am
Trouble is, electrons don't mass a lot and you won't get a lot of thrust...

Well that depends on how many electrons you are handling plus the mass differential between high speed and low speed sides. If the solid capacitors dielectric atoms can only be varied in mass by 0.001%, and you can instead move 1000 electrons with a mass variance of 50% as they go from .1 c to .999 c from one side of the chamber to the other, and an electron is 0.0005 AMU at rest (thus becoming 0.001 AMU at .999c) then 1000 electrons exhibit a mass variance of 1 AMU per cycle.

Because you can move electrons much faster than ions, then you should be able to achieve MUCH higher cycle frequencies with the electrons in the chamber than you could with ions in a dielectric. As the charts that Paul has posted here indicate, higher the frequency, the higher the efficiency and higher the thrust.

Mike:

What would you suggest building?  Since we are dealing with electrons, I assume we would have to use some type of vacuum tube arrangement with a hot cathode emitter and then some type of capacitor arrangement for the energy storage element where the electrons would accumulate during each half cycle.  We would then apply an external B-field to create the Lorentz force rectification signal.  Past that I’m not seeing it yet, nor all the pitfalls along the way either.


Be careful. You might accidently end up with a Polywell Fusor. ;)

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/08/2009 09:01 am
Trouble is, electrons don't mass a lot and you won't get a lot of thrust...

Well that depends on how many electrons you are handling plus the mass differential between high speed and low speed sides. If the solid capacitors dielectric atoms can only be varied in mass by 0.001%, and you can instead move 1000 electrons with a mass variance of 50% as they go from .1 c to .999 c from one side of the chamber to the other, and an electron is 0.0005 AMU at rest (thus becoming 0.001 AMU at .999c) then 1000 electrons exhibit a mass variance of 1 AMU per cycle.

Because you can move electrons much faster than ions, then you should be able to achieve MUCH higher cycle frequencies with the electrons in the chamber than you could with ions in a dielectric. As the charts that Paul has posted here indicate, higher the frequency, the higher the efficiency and higher the thrust.

Mike:

What would you suggest building?  Since we are dealing with electrons, I assume we would have to use some type of vacuum tube arrangement with a hot cathode emitter and then some type of capacitor arrangement for the energy storage element where the electrons would accumulate during each half cycle.  We would then apply an external B-field to create the Lorentz force rectification signal.  Past that I’m not seeing it yet, nor all the pitfalls along the way either.


Well I'm not quite sure what to build to make this work. Perhaps a donut coil but which has a cross section that is egg shaped that is either toed in  or outward. This would be the core of a special sort of Betatron that would cause the electrons to orbit the donut in a odd orbit that would cause them to drop a lot of angular momentum on one side. Possible side effects are a significant amount of synchrotron radiation as "waste heat" of the energy conversion.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/08/2009 04:25 pm
Trouble is, electrons don't mass a lot and you won't get a lot of thrust...

Well that depends on how many electrons you are handling plus the mass differential between high speed and low speed sides. If the solid capacitors dielectric atoms can only be varied in mass by 0.001%, and you can instead move 1000 electrons with a mass variance of 50% as they go from .1 c to .999 c from one side of the chamber to the other, and an electron is 0.0005 AMU at rest (thus becoming 0.001 AMU at .999c) then 1000 electrons exhibit a mass variance of 1 AMU per cycle.

Because you can move electrons much faster than ions, then you should be able to achieve MUCH higher cycle frequencies with the electrons in the chamber than you could with ions in a dielectric. As the charts that Paul has posted here indicate, higher the frequency, the higher the efficiency and higher the thrust.

Mike:

What would you suggest building?  Since we are dealing with electrons, I assume we would have to use some type of vacuum tube arrangement with a hot cathode emitter and then some type of capacitor arrangement for the energy storage element where the electrons would accumulate during each half cycle.  We would then apply an external B-field to create the Lorentz force rectification signal.  Past that I’m not seeing it yet, nor all the pitfalls along the way either.


Be careful. You might accidently end up with a Polywell Fusor. ;)


kkattula:

I know you say that in jest, but what if we could actually turn Bussard's Wiffle Ball (WB) fusion reactor into an M-E drive?  (Visions of Star Trek NTG's pulsating antimatter reactor core down in engineering being tended by Jordy comes to mind :) )

Seriously, using a WB-XX reactor as our starting point, we have the required energy source that we could then modulate its output (d^2E/dt^2) by applying a time varying E-field to the already existing 100kV E-field potential well used to retard and covert the kinetic energy of the escaping fusion helium ions into electrical potential energy for the ship.  If we then bulk accelerated the fusion core plasma and these escaping helium ions at the appropriate MLT’s 2X the E-field rate by differentially modulating the existing B-field virtual grid coils in a particular direction, we could have one hell of a dual use technology with full 360 degree thrust vectoring in the X, Y, and Z axes!!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/08/2009 04:34 pm
Trouble is, electrons don't mass a lot and you won't get a lot of thrust...

Well that depends on how many electrons you are handling plus the mass differential between high speed and low speed sides. If the solid capacitors dielectric atoms can only be varied in mass by 0.001%, and you can instead move 1000 electrons with a mass variance of 50% as they go from .1 c to .999 c from one side of the chamber to the other, and an electron is 0.0005 AMU at rest (thus becoming 0.001 AMU at .999c) then 1000 electrons exhibit a mass variance of 1 AMU per cycle.

Because you can move electrons much faster than ions, then you should be able to achieve MUCH higher cycle frequencies with the electrons in the chamber than you could with ions in a dielectric. As the charts that Paul has posted here indicate, higher the frequency, the higher the efficiency and higher the thrust.

Mike:

What would you suggest building?  Since we are dealing with electrons, I assume we would have to use some type of vacuum tube arrangement with a hot cathode emitter and then some type of capacitor arrangement for the energy storage element where the electrons would accumulate during each half cycle.  We would then apply an external B-field to create the Lorentz force rectification signal.  Past that I’m not seeing it yet, nor all the pitfalls along the way either.


Well I'm not quite sure what to build to make this work. Perhaps a donut coil but which has a cross section that is egg shaped that is either toed in  or outward. This would be the core of a special sort of Betatron that would cause the electrons to orbit the donut in a odd orbit that would cause them to drop a lot of angular momentum on one side. Possible side effects are a significant amount of synchrotron radiation as "waste heat" of the energy conversion.

Mike:

See my above post to kkattula.  Using much more massive He ions for our basic M-E element would be preferable to using electrons, especially with the kinetic energy these He ions have with this dual use circumstances.  And it doesn't cost us anything to accelerate them!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 10/08/2009 05:27 pm
Trouble is, electrons don't mass a lot and you won't get a lot of thrust...

Well that depends on how many electrons you are handling plus the mass differential between high speed and low speed sides. If the solid capacitors dielectric atoms can only be varied in mass by 0.001%, and you can instead move 1000 electrons with a mass variance of 50% as they go from .1 c to .999 c from one side of the chamber to the other, and an electron is 0.0005 AMU at rest (thus becoming 0.001 AMU at .999c) then 1000 electrons exhibit a mass variance of 1 AMU per cycle.

Because you can move electrons much faster than ions, then you should be able to achieve MUCH higher cycle frequencies with the electrons in the chamber than you could with ions in a dielectric. As the charts that Paul has posted here indicate, higher the frequency, the higher the efficiency and higher the thrust.

Mike:

What would you suggest building?  Since we are dealing with electrons, I assume we would have to use some type of vacuum tube arrangement with a hot cathode emitter and then some type of capacitor arrangement for the energy storage element where the electrons would accumulate during each half cycle.  We would then apply an external B-field to create the Lorentz force rectification signal.  Past that I’m not seeing it yet, nor all the pitfalls along the way either.


Be careful. You might accidently end up with a Polywell Fusor. ;)


kkattula:

I know you say that in jest, but what if we could actually turn Bussard's Wiffle Ball (WB) fusion reactor into an M-E drive?  (Visions of Star Trek NTG's pulsating antimatter reactor core down in engineering being tended by Jordy comes to mind :) )

Seriously, using a WB-XX reactor as our starting point, we have the required energy source that we could then modulate its output (d^2E/dt^2) by applying a time varying E-field to the already existing 100kV E-field potential well used to retard and covert the kinetic energy of the escaping fusion helium ions into electrical potential energy for the ship.  If we then bulk accelerated the fusion core plasma and these escaping helium ions at the appropriate MLT’s 2X the E-field rate by differentially modulating the existing B-field virtual grid coils in a particular direction, we could have one hell of a dual use technology with full 360 degree thrust vectoring in the X, Y, and Z axes!!


Interesting. As long as the B-field modulation didn't interfere with the fusor operation.

I'd be a little worried about the electrons (that form the virtual grid) being accelerated into the coil housings, since they're such low mass compared to the ions, but have the same magnitude charge.  Or would the period of the acceleration be too small to have that effect?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/08/2009 06:46 pm
Kkattula:

The interaction between the power generation and propulsion functions could end up being a MAJOR show stopper for this dual use approach, especially in regards to the WB electron flux since they are so light weight in comparison to the He4 ions.  However, once we've established that the WB-XX fusion reactors have met our power generation expectations, and that the M-E is a real propulsion technology to be pursued, then we should perform a detailed analysis of the interactions between the two subsystems to see if there is a happy operational middle ground where both of these subsystems can perform their intended functions without too many comprises for either.  That point is not now, but it is still a future possibility. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/09/2009 01:30 am
Kkattula:

The interaction between the power generation and propulsion functions could end up being a MAJOR show stopper for this dual use approach, especially in regards to the WB electron flux since they are so light weight in comparison to the He4 ions.  However, once we've established that the WB-XX fusion reactors have met our power generation expectations, and that the M-E is a real propulsion technology to be pursued, then we should perform a detailed analysis of the interactions between the two subsystems to see if there is a happy operational middle ground where both of these subsystems can perform their intended functions without too many comprises for either.  That point is not now, but it is still a future possibility. 

Yes, if the electrons drop energy in synchrotron radiation when you are trying to generate thrust, you could see a lot of thermalization effects, brehmstrahlung, etc which one wants to minimize in a fuzor, so you may need to have two completely different units, one powering the other.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/09/2009 12:08 pm
Kkattula:

The interaction between the power generation and propulsion functions could end up being a MAJOR show stopper for this dual use approach, especially in regards to the WB electron flux since they are so light weight in comparison to the He4 ions.  However, once we've established that the WB-XX fusion reactors have met our power generation expectations, and that the M-E is a real propulsion technology to be pursued, then we should perform a detailed analysis of the interactions between the two subsystems to see if there is a happy operational middle ground where both of these subsystems can perform their intended functions without too many comprises for either.  That point is not now, but it is still a future possibility. 

Yes, if the electrons drop energy in synchrotron radiation when you are trying to generate thrust, you could see a lot of thermalization effects, brehmstrahlung, etc which one wants to minimize in a fuzor, so you may need to have two completely different units, one powering the other.

Mike:

Accepted.  Dr. Neble has to show us that the WB-8 & 8.1 work as advertised and the M-E team needs to conclusively demonstrate that the M-E is real and engineerable into large scale space drives.  If and when those two gates are successfully navigated, we perform a trade study on merging their two functions into one light weight reactor/drive unit.  If it turns out that this is not possible due to the technical issues discussed and any other issues found along the way, we optimize a two major subsystem M-E space drive that also provides power to the rest of the ship loads.   
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: isa_guy on 10/09/2009 09:07 pm
 http://www.physorg.com/news174293159.html , interesting dont you think so  ;)?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/10/2009 01:38 am
http://www.physorg.com/news174293159.html , interesting dont you think so  ;)?

Its an interesting theory however some of Hilbert's predictions have not held up to experiment so I am doubtful that this is going to hold long term.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 10/13/2009 08:25 am
Trouble is, electrons don't mass a lot and you won't get a lot of thrust...

Well that depends on how many electrons you are handling plus the mass differential between high speed and low speed sides. If the solid capacitors dielectric atoms can only be varied in mass by 0.001%, and you can instead move 1000 electrons with a mass variance of 50% as they go from .1 c to .999 c from one side of the chamber to the other, and an electron is 0.0005 AMU at rest (thus becoming 0.001 AMU at .999c) then 1000 electrons exhibit a mass variance of 1 AMU per cycle.

Because you can move electrons much faster than ions, then you should be able to achieve MUCH higher cycle frequencies with the electrons in the chamber than you could with ions in a dielectric. As the charts that Paul has posted here indicate, higher the frequency, the higher the efficiency and higher the thrust.

Pulsed-lasers driving electrons with Coulomb explosions would do the trick then. Blast them off a plasma foil, shooting along at ~0.9c, but how do you slow them down? These are pactically cosmic rays now.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 10/13/2009 08:34 am
An electron at 0.9c isn't all that energetic.  About 660 kV should do the trick...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 10/13/2009 04:09 pm
One thing neglected in this talk of using electron propulsion is how do you keep the vehicle more or less neutrally charged? You can either just let the vehicle collide with electrons from the plasma (solar wind or interstellar medium) it travels through (this both losses some degree of energy to the collisions and reduces to a minor degree the energy of the electrons in your exhaust stream), or you can add positive charged ions to your exhaust stream to make it neutrally charged. The latter basically reduces the problem to existing and near future electric propulsion systems.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 10/13/2009 06:02 pm
One thing neglected in this talk of using electron propulsion is how do you keep the vehicle more or less neutrally charged?

...we're not talking about ejecting the electrons.  We're talking about oscillating them in a closed plasma trap in order to leverage the Mach effect.  Take a look at the thread title...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 10/14/2009 05:14 am
I'm sorry about that. I was wondering what this had to do with the thread. Figured it was some comparison with electric propulsion that drifted a bit.

Glancing through the previous posts, I must admit that I don't like the use of electrons in a plasma. The problem is synchrotron radiation. If you're bouncing electrons in a chamber at a significant fraction of the speed of light, you are generating a lot of photons (not sure what their frequency would be) each time you bend the path of the electron. Maybe that could be used to  transfer energy to another plasma chamber.

How about some sort of lasing mechanism? Pump energy in to a crystal lattice of atoms, pushing the electrons to a higher energy state, on one side of the centrifuge and discharge on the other side. You might even be able to recycle most of the energy involved (excluding of course that expended on net thrust). It doesn't have the raw energy of relativistic electrons, but the energy density might be better.

I wonder if there may even be a way to do this with the nuclei themselves. That is, take a nucleus in the ground state, excite it to a nuclear isomer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer) state and then decay. Glancing around, it appears a better way might be to find a nuclear isomer that decays mostly by beta (electron) decay rather than via gamma ray photons. Perhaps one could even reliably pump that electron in and out of the nucleus.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/14/2009 11:07 am
I'm sorry about that. I was wondering what this had to do with the thread. Figured it was some comparison with electric propulsion that drifted a bit.

Glancing through the previous posts, I must admit that I don't like the use of electrons in a plasma. The problem is synchrotron radiation. If you're bouncing electrons in a chamber at a significant fraction of the speed of light, you are generating a lot of photons (not sure what their frequency would be) each time you bend the path of the electron. Maybe that could be used to  transfer energy to another plasma chamber.

That was my read too. Question: Why is it that electrons orbiting a nucleus do not emit photons unless they are dropping from higher orbits to lower ones? If an electron emits photons any time you bend its path, then the orbit of an electron around a nucleus should cause light emissions, but it does not. Since it does not, why doesn't it, and can we use that to our advantage with some field effect to make the electrons think they are in orbit around a nucleus while orbiting in the trap?

Obviously given electrons are so active in the plasma of a polywell reactor, there are conditions under which synchrotron radiation is limited. From my reading it appears electrons orbit pretty widely in and out of the potential well in the polywell.

Quote

How about some sort of lasing mechanism? Pump energy in to a crystal lattice of atoms, pushing the electrons to a higher energy state, on one side of the centrifuge and discharge on the other side. You might even be able to recycle most of the energy involved (excluding of course that expended on net thrust). It doesn't have the raw energy of relativistic electrons, but the energy density might be better.

I wonder if there may even be a way to do this with the nuclei themselves. That is, take a nucleus in the ground state, excite it to a nuclear isomer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer) state and then decay. Glancing around, it appears a better way might be to find a nuclear isomer that decays mostly by beta (electron) decay rather than via gamma ray photons. Perhaps one could even reliably pump that electron in and out of the nucleus.


Thats an interesting idea. You would need to figure out how to get the electrons to emit from the nucleus all in the same direction. Perhaps by making a Bose-Einstein condensate of high atomic number atoms?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 10/15/2009 05:05 pm

Glancing through the previous posts, I must admit that I don't like the use of electrons in a plasma. The problem is synchrotron radiation. If you're bouncing electrons in a chamber at a significant fraction of the speed of light, you are generating a lot of photons (not sure what their frequency would be) each time you bend the path of the electron. Maybe that could be used to  transfer energy to another plasma chamber.

That was my read too. Question: Why is it that electrons orbiting a nucleus do not emit photons unless they are dropping from higher orbits to lower ones? If an electron emits photons any time you bend its path, then the orbit of an electron around a nucleus should cause light emissions, but it does not. Since it does not, why doesn't it, and can we use that to our advantage with some field effect to make the electrons think they are in orbit around a nucleus while orbiting in the trap?

The short answer is that synchrotron radiation is a classical effect. When you get to the quantum scale (as in the "lasing" example I mentioned), then the classical ideas no longer work. If the chambers were made small enough, then quantum effects (or more accurately a combination of quantum and relavistic effects) would dominate. Technically speaking, the lasing example is the chamber scheme at a quantum scale, but probably with lower energy levels.

Quote
Obviously given electrons are so active in the plasma of a polywell reactor, there are conditions under which synchrotron radiation is limited. From my reading it appears electrons orbit pretty widely in and out of the potential well in the polywell.

Another factor is whether something can reabsorb the emitted synchrotron radiation. That's one of the factors with the polywell. The plasma self-absorbs most of the synchrotron radiation produced. Only the bit produced near the edge of the plasma can escape.

Quote
Quote
How about some sort of lasing mechanism? Pump energy in to a crystal lattice of atoms, pushing the electrons to a higher energy state, on one side of the centrifuge and discharge on the other side. You might even be able to recycle most of the energy involved (excluding of course that expended on net thrust). It doesn't have the raw energy of relativistic electrons, but the energy density might be better.

I wonder if there may even be a way to do this with the nuclei themselves. That is, take a nucleus in the ground state, excite it to a nuclear isomer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer) state and then decay. Glancing around, it appears a better way might be to find a nuclear isomer that decays mostly by beta (electron) decay rather than via gamma ray photons. Perhaps one could even reliably pump that electron in and out of the nucleus.

Thats an interesting idea. You would need to figure out how to get the electrons to emit from the nucleus all in the same direction. Perhaps by making a Bose-Einstein condensate of high atomic number atoms?

No idea here. My thinking here was to look for huge variation in energy density as one way to increase the effects of an MLT. Capacitors, superconducting inductors, and maybe some mechanical systems like micromechanical spinning disks seem pretty much the current or near future viable ways to efficiently store energy that can have a high store/discharge frequency. If you're trying to increase energy density variation by a bunch of orders of magnitude, that requires some sort of pretty exotic system, things like nuclear isomers, spinning miniature black holes, etc.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: isa_guy on 10/16/2009 02:58 pm
An  interesting concept dont you think so  ;)? http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/AIAA-2009-5069-885Gravitational_Field_Propulsion.pdf.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: randomly on 10/17/2009 04:50 am
That was my read too. Question: Why is it that electrons orbiting a nucleus do not emit photons unless they are dropping from higher orbits to lower ones? If an electron emits photons any time you bend its path, then the orbit of an electron around a nucleus should cause light emissions, but it does not. Since it does not, why doesn't it, and can we use that to our advantage with some field effect to make the electrons think they are in orbit around a nucleus while orbiting in the trap?

Electrons don't actually orbit the nucleus despite the use of the name orbital. An orbital is a wave function that describes the probability distribution of an electron in that orbital. Don't try to apply any real world analogies at the quantum level, they are almost invariable wrong.

"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger that we CAN imagine." -Sir Arthur Eddington
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/17/2009 06:19 am
That was my read too. Question: Why is it that electrons orbiting a nucleus do not emit photons unless they are dropping from higher orbits to lower ones? If an electron emits photons any time you bend its path, then the orbit of an electron around a nucleus should cause light emissions, but it does not. Since it does not, why doesn't it, and can we use that to our advantage with some field effect to make the electrons think they are in orbit around a nucleus while orbiting in the trap?

Electrons don't actually orbit the nucleus despite the use of the name orbital. An orbital is a wave function that describes the probability distribution of an electron in that orbital. Don't try to apply any real world analogies at the quantum level, they are almost invariable wrong.

"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger that we CAN imagine." -Sir Arthur Eddington

I'm aware of the probability distribution issue.

So, question: is the wavelength of the synchrotron radiation relative to the turn radius of electron in the betatron cavity? If so, is there an equation that describes how to calculate it?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: randomly on 10/18/2009 02:14 am
So, question: is the wavelength of the synchrotron radiation relative to the turn radius of electron in the betatron cavity? If so, is there an equation that describes how to calculate it?
The wavelength of the synchrotron radiation is relative to the acceleration of the electron. The faster the acceleration the shorter the wavelength. Acceleration is the magnetic field times the velocity of the electron. The turn radius is velocity divided by magnetic field. So increasing the magnetic field is the only way to increase the acceleration.
For a given magnetic field, increasing velocity means increasing radius and acceleration is constant. Decreasing radius means decreasing velocity and again acceleration is same as before.

But take this all with a grain of salt as I only recall this stuff vaguely.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/18/2009 04:36 am
So, question: is the wavelength of the synchrotron radiation relative to the turn radius of electron in the betatron cavity? If so, is there an equation that describes how to calculate it?
The wavelength of the synchrotron radiation is relative to the acceleration of the electron. The faster the acceleration the shorter the wavelength. Acceleration is the magnetic field times the velocity of the electron. The turn radius is velocity divided by magnetic field. So increasing the magnetic field is the only way to increase the acceleration.
For a given magnetic field, increasing velocity means increasing radius and acceleration is constant. Decreasing radius means decreasing velocity and again acceleration is same as before.

But take this all with a grain of salt as I only recall this stuff vaguely.

Ok, this is what I expected generally, I guess we need to find out at what point an electron emits synchrotron radiation. If emissions occur for each quanta of energy then using this as a thruster may be limited to a speed differential of less than one quanta, which would obviously put a damper on the upper end performance.

I would also suspect that there may be similar limits on the performance of solid dielectric capacitor based M-E thrusters, in which you wind up generating a lot of radiation emissions when the mass variations exceed a certain percentage of atomic mass, which drains energy.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: randomly on 10/18/2009 05:40 am
I would also suspect that there may be similar limits on the performance of solid dielectric capacitor based M-E thrusters, in which you wind up generating a lot of radiation emissions when the mass variations exceed a certain percentage of atomic mass, which drains energy.

I think dialectric losses will rule out any use of solid dialectrics. Losses will be prohibitive.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/19/2009 10:15 am
I would also suspect that there may be similar limits on the performance of solid dielectric capacitor based M-E thrusters, in which you wind up generating a lot of radiation emissions when the mass variations exceed a certain percentage of atomic mass, which drains energy.

I think dialectric losses will rule out any use of solid dialectrics. Losses will be prohibitive.

Well you don't know that for a fact, try reading Woodward's work first.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: randomly on 10/20/2009 03:08 pm
Well you don't know that for a fact, try reading Woodward's work first.
That is true. I've only read a little material about Woodward's work so far.
I didn't mean to imply that dialectric losses would preclude observation of the phenomenon. I meant that the losses would probably preclude it's practical application as a space drive. The energy requirements would be so high for useful amount of thrust that it wouldn't be worth it.

I'm not positive I'm correct, but it seems a significant point of concern.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 10/20/2009 06:59 pm
I didn't mean to imply that dialectric losses would preclude observation of the phenomenon. I meant that the losses would probably preclude it's practical application as a space drive. The energy requirements would be so high for useful amount of thrust that it wouldn't be worth it.

I'm not positive I'm correct, but it seems a significant point of concern.

That's dielectric.

If the experimental results to date are correct, your worry is likely unfounded.  Paul March has observed results (with less than perfect experimental controls, admittedly) that already exceed the thrust-to-power ratio of VASIMR by a factor of 10, with the thrust-to-weight ratio being better as well IIRC.  Woodward himself has been deliberately playing it safe with his designs, but he's apparently within an order of magnitude of VASIMR's high-Isp mode thrust-to-power ratio already.

Now consider that if the thrust die-off issue is solved, these engines can essentially thrust forever or until a component fails - no propellant required...  Even if you have to anneal the dielectric every few thousand hours, you might be able to build that capability into the spacecraft, and you'd still be far beyond where we are now...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: randomly on 10/21/2009 01:31 am
That's dielectric.
Heh, thanks for the correction. My own bad cooking had put another 'dia..' word to the forefront of my muddled mind.
Quote
If the experimental results to date are correct, your worry is likely unfounded.  Paul March has observed results (with less than perfect experimental controls, admittedly) that already exceed the thrust-to-power ratio of VASIMR by a factor of 10, with the thrust-to-weight ratio being better as well IIRC.  Woodward himself has been deliberately playing it safe with his designs, but he's apparently within an order of magnitude of VASIMR's high-Isp mode thrust-to-power ratio already.

Now consider that if the thrust die-off issue is solved, these engines can essentially thrust forever or until a component fails - no propellant required...  Even if you have to anneal the dielectric every few thousand hours, you might be able to build that capability into the spacecraft, and you'd still be far beyond where we are now...

Can you point me to any links that would provide more information about how much power is cycling through the capacitor per cycle vs how much thrust is generated?
Past experience with losses in large dielectric constant and piezo materials just pops up alarm bells for me if there is high power cycling through them. At some point if the energy cost is too high you'll be better off throwing the expended matter from the energy source overboard as propellant.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/21/2009 02:35 am
I didn't mean to imply that dialectric losses would preclude observation of the phenomenon. I meant that the losses would probably preclude it's practical application as a space drive. The energy requirements would be so high for useful amount of thrust that it wouldn't be worth it.

I'm not positive I'm correct, but it seems a significant point of concern.

That's dielectric.

If the experimental results to date are correct, your worry is likely unfounded.  Paul March has observed results (with less than perfect experimental controls, admittedly) that already exceed the thrust-to-power ratio of VASIMR by a factor of 10, with the thrust-to-weight ratio being better as well IIRC.  Woodward himself has been deliberately playing it safe with his designs, but he's apparently within an order of magnitude of VASIMR's high-Isp mode thrust-to-power ratio already.

Now consider that if the thrust die-off issue is solved, these engines can essentially thrust forever or until a component fails - no propellant required...  Even if you have to anneal the dielectric every few thousand hours, you might be able to build that capability into the spacecraft, and you'd still be far beyond where we are now...

I think actually that the only thrust die-off problem will be placing an upper speed limit as some percentage of C where beyond some point the occillations in the dielectric atoms will start generating radiation that will cause losses from thermal noise in the dielectric material.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 10/26/2009 11:34 pm
Here's an interesting new angle. Scientists have gotten a bit of matter to vibrate (http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13296) at "tens of gigahertz". The mass that is vibrating seems to be on the scale of a micrometer (maybe a micrometer wide and tens of micrometers long?) and weighs 10^-13 grams.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: HMXHMX on 10/27/2009 10:07 pm
Now for something completely different.  Hyperbola says they will report on an EmDrive vehicle/spacecraft later this week:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/10/ceas-2009-the-emdrive-spacepla.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 10/28/2009 03:01 am
Now for something completely different.  Hyperbola says they will report on an EmDrive vehicle/spacecraft later this week:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/10/ceas-2009-the-emdrive-spacepla.html

Is it too late to get it included in the Augustine Report?  ;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/28/2009 05:14 am
Now for something completely different.  Hyperbola says they will report on an EmDrive vehicle/spacecraft later this week:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/10/ceas-2009-the-emdrive-spacepla.html

The operating principle of the EM Drive seems to correlate with my own previous comments although there seems to be quite a bit more opposition to its validity without any independent experimentation to actually demonstrate yea or nay, other than a claim in Wired magazine of a chinese verification of the technology...

Whether it works or not, I think opposing any proposed technology without independent testing and replication is itself unscientific
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 11/05/2009 05:37 pm
Any news from anyone experimenting with Mach effect, or Cramer's retro-causality experiment?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 11/05/2009 11:52 pm
Any news from anyone experimenting with Mach effect, or Cramer's retro-causality experiment?

GI-Thruster got banned a while back. I've emailed him to keep in touch.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/09/2009 09:45 pm
Any news from anyone experimenting with Mach effect, or Cramer's retro-causality experiment?

No, James Woodward hasn't done anything, he was on sabbatical. Last I heard, Paul March was still working on his latest rig.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/09/2009 10:04 pm
They just have to scale it up, now.
Here's the latest progress:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WyULc3jCgg
;)

Honestly, though. I'm not hopeful for any of these propellantless field propulsion techniques (besides lasers, solar sails, etc). It'd be ridiculously awesome, though. We could go anywhere in the solar system quite cheaply, and if something like the Polywell or FocusFusion works out (which I'm more optimistic about, since the popularly accepted laws of physics don't need changing, but still I wouldn't give them better than 5% chance), we could be sending probes to other star systems much the same way we send them to the outer planets. But, this is only a dream. A beautiful dream, but a dream nonetheless. EDIT: All this IMHO.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/10/2009 11:55 pm
LOL, funny video!

I would give Bussard a much better chance however. It is, after all, based on a fusion "reactor" that a reasonably competent high school student can build out of junk. There's no reason why such a thing shouldn't be possible, we've just been taught that there are no easy power sources - both by the oil crowd and the environmentalists.

It's not whether Bussard polywells won't work - just like Tokamak fusion - it's a question of how economically viable they will be and when. We've been hammering at fusion and plasma physics for 50 years now, I think it's reasonable to say we've learned something about how to "hold jelly with strings..."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/15/2009 04:35 am
Any news from anyone experimenting with Mach effect, or Cramer's retro-causality experiment?

No, James Woodward hasn't done anything, he was on sabbatical. Last I heard, Paul March was still working on his latest rig.

Dr. Woodward is curently building up a shuttler UFG design that should be opertional after the first of the year.  I've run into some technical issues with my MLT-2009 that will require a complete rebuild of the Teflon based test article centered on improving the large losses encountered in the resonant circut at 52 MHz.  On another track I'm also helping Dr. Harold White in developing two different test articles that will explore his QVF/MHD conjecture with some first light data expected sometime during this coming Xmas vacation, if family circumstances permit.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 11/16/2009 01:42 am
Thanks :)  Will these delays mean no conference presentation early next year?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/16/2009 03:10 am
Thanks :)  Will these delays mean no conference presentation early next year?

Dr. Woodward will be presenting at SPESIF-2010 and has already submitted his paper for same covering his M-E proof of principle rotary work from last spring, but it will not cover this shuttler work except perhaps in his PowerPoint presentation for same.  I will not be presenting until I get something to work and have data to present.  These conferences cost too much otherwise.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 12/02/2009 09:32 pm
Thanks!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: bpb3 on 01/02/2010 02:40 pm
Star Drive:   Is there any progress you can report on with your lasted MLT device?   Last we heard was that you had some kind of manufacturing flaw to correct.   

Thanks.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/02/2010 06:47 pm
Star Drive:   Is there any progress you can report on with your lasted MLT device?   Last we heard was that you had some kind of manufacturing flaw to correct.   

Thanks.


Bpb3:

Sadly I found that it would take an entire rebuild of the Teflon MLT that I built to fix the electrical loss problems uncovered during inital testing, and I just haven't had the heart or time to push it any further at this time.  Instead I've been helping Jim Woodward on his M-E based "Shuttler" design work, and building QVF/MHD based test articles for Dr. Harold (Sonny) White who works here at JSC.  One of those QVF/MHD test articles has the potential of producing the sought after 1.0 Newton of thrust, but it requires a 15kV-dc power supply to do so, so I'm in the middle of fabricating one as I type this note.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/03/2010 01:26 pm
Sounds exciting. How far along is Dr. White's test article? Are there any schematics of it?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/03/2010 02:35 pm
Sounds exciting. How far along is Dr. White's test article? Are there any schematics of it?


Lampy:

It looks very much like an MLT, however it is optimized to ehance the toroidal B-field in same.   I hope to have some intial test runs on it by the end of next weekend.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 01/04/2010 03:34 am
Paul,
If you have the time,
Could you point me to link that explains what the shuttler-type experiment shows? for example, I understand the QVF on a torque pendulum, that is explained in the STAIF-2007 ppt, but what would one see as the output on Woodward's latest shuttler?

r/
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/04/2010 04:25 am
Paul,
If you have the time,
Could you point me to link that explains what the shuttler-type experiment shows? for example, I understand the QVF on a torque pendulum, that is explained in the STAIF-2007 ppt, but what would one see as the output on Woodward's latest shuttler?

r/


Woodward's M-E shuttler device should demonstrate a net dc force with an ac cyclic force riding on top of it at the rectification frequency of 80 kHz.  Jim will be using his ~1.0 uN resolution ARC-Lite torque pendulum to dectect these Shuttler forces for this test series.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 01/04/2010 05:09 pm
Ok, now I'm confused on terminology:

"shuttler device" = rotary UFG or MLT on a torque pendulum?

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: bpb3 on 01/05/2010 12:19 am
First - I find it amusing and astonishing how a simple question can bootstrap a moribund topic like my last posting did.  This is fun!

Second - Given StarDrive's answer, one begins to consider whether or not the research into the Mach effect has reached the point of deminishing returns in regards to the scale of effort available to the 'garage tinkerer' despite his or her qualifications.   At what point does the evidence become conclusive?   (Lets not talk about riding into the NASA Admin's office on an MLT hover chair.)   

There has been some talk about the need for finding, creating, or even just specifying the working parameters of the materials needed for a practical MLT or its equivalent.  This reminds me of Edison's search for the proper filament for a light bulb.  He knew the theory was good - shoot some juice to a wire and it glows - but making it practical was the hard part.   So - do we know that the Mach-Lorentz Effect is real?   If so - how does one finance an Edison-like search for the proper materials?

It can't be too hard to raise the money.  The blacklight power guy has millons from investors and his theory is even weirder.   

P.S On my previous post I wrote "lasted" when I meant "latest" . I hope you didn't think I meant "blasted"!     
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/05/2010 04:06 am
Ok, now I'm confused on terminology:

"shuttler device" = rotary UFG or MLT on a torque pendulum?


A shuttler device is one made from two PZT stacks that linearly push/pulls on a capacitor array over a distance of microns, thus inducing a cyclic bulk acceleration to the energy storing capcitors.  This new M-E based shuttler test article will be mounted in Woodward's exsitng torque pendulum that will be used to measure any net output forces generated.

Edit: Clarified, Spell checked and added Shuttler device slide.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/05/2010 04:12 am
First - I find it amusing and astonishing how a simple question can bootstrap a moribund topic like my last posting did.  This is fun!

Second - Given StarDrive's answer, one begins to consider whether or not the research into the Mach effect has reached the point of deminishing returns in regards to the scale of effort available to the 'garage tinkerer' despite his or her qualifications.   At what point does the evidence become conclusive?   (Lets not talk about riding into the NASA Admin's office on an MLT hover chair.)   

There has been some talk about the need for finding, creating, or even just specifying the working parameters of the materials needed for a practical MLT or its equivalent.  This reminds me of Edison's search for the proper filament for a light bulb.  He knew the theory was good - shoot some juice to a wire and it glows - but making it practical was the hard part.   So - do we know that the Mach-Lorentz Effect is real?   If so - how does one finance an Edison-like search for the proper materials?

It can't be too hard to raise the money.  The blacklight power guy has millons from investors and his theory is even weirder.   

P.S On my previous post I wrote "lasted" when I meant "latest" . I hope you didn't think I meant "blasted"!   
 

"So - do we know that the Mach-Lorentz Effect is real?   If so - how does one finance an Edison-like search for the proper materials?"

Whether the M-E is real or not is in the eye of the beholder at this stage of the game.  There is enough data present to say soemthing curious is going on, but not enough high grade order of magnitude above the noise data that has been replicated in mutiple labs to say with certainty that it's for real as advertised.  As to financing, Woodward prefers not to get entangled in such schemes since he likes to work at his own self-financed pace and as his health status permits.  He is still fighting cancer...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 01/06/2010 03:08 am
Ok, now I'm confused on terminology:

"shuttler device" = rotary UFG or MLT on a torque pendulum?


A shuttler device is one made from two PZT stacks that linearly push/pulls on a capacitor array over a distance of microns, thus inducing a cyclic bulk acceleration to the energy storing capcitors.  This new M-E based shuttler test article will be mounted in Woodward's exsitng torque pendulum that will be used to measure any net output forces generated.

Edit: Clarified, Spell checked and added Shuttler device slide.

Thanks for the answer & graphic.

Tom
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 01/06/2010 06:16 pm
"So - do we know that the Mach-Lorentz Effect is real?   If so - how does one finance an Edison-like search for the proper materials?"

Whether the M-E is real or not is in the eye of the beholder at this stage of the game.  There is enough data present to say soemthing curious is going on, but not enough high grade order of magnitude above the noise data that has been replicated in mutiple labs to say with certainty that it's for real as advertised.  As to financing, Woodward prefers not to get entangled in such schemes since he likes to work at his own self-financed pace and as his health status permits.  He is still fighting cancer...


Sounds like Bussard, cept at least he got Navy funding. Gah, capital financing isn't a 'scheme'. When it comes to investors and their money, if anything is a scheme is a false claim of scientific fact. Theres still plenty of people who are willing to toss in money even on a very speculative research project.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/06/2010 06:33 pm
"So - do we know that the Mach-Lorentz Effect is real?   If so - how does one finance an Edison-like search for the proper materials?"

Whether the M-E is real or not is in the eye of the beholder at this stage of the game.  There is enough data present to say soemthing curious is going on, but not enough high grade order of magnitude above the noise data that has been replicated in mutiple labs to say with certainty that it's for real as advertised.  As to financing, Woodward prefers not to get entangled in such schemes since he likes to work at his own self-financed pace and as his health status permits.  He is still fighting cancer...


Sounds like Bussard, cept at least he got Navy funding. Gah, capital financing isn't a 'scheme'. When it comes to investors and their money, if anything is a scheme is a false claim of scientific fact. Theres still plenty of people who are willing to toss in money even on a very speculative research project.


Mike:

The investors Woodward and I have talked to over the last ten years all wanted a sure-thing, 99% of the pie, and R&D control before they were willing to plunk down significant funding that could pay for our time.  Woodward got very disgusted with the whole lot of them about the time he was diagnosed with lung cancer a few years back now, so he just stopped looking.  It didn’t help either that we kept running over IEDs in the M-E R&D road like the just discovered dielectric E-field shielding effect either.  My viewpoint on this fund raising business is that when the first G/I test article can float, or at the very least push itself across an air hockey table as a self contained propulsion unit, is the time when we start back up asking for investors, but not until then.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 01/07/2010 06:58 am
"So - do we know that the Mach-Lorentz Effect is real?   If so - how does one finance an Edison-like search for the proper materials?"

Whether the M-E is real or not is in the eye of the beholder at this stage of the game.  There is enough data present to say soemthing curious is going on, but not enough high grade order of magnitude above the noise data that has been replicated in mutiple labs to say with certainty that it's for real as advertised.  As to financing, Woodward prefers not to get entangled in such schemes since he likes to work at his own self-financed pace and as his health status permits.  He is still fighting cancer...


Sounds like Bussard, cept at least he got Navy funding. Gah, capital financing isn't a 'scheme'. When it comes to investors and their money, if anything is a scheme is a false claim of scientific fact. Theres still plenty of people who are willing to toss in money even on a very speculative research project.


Mike:

The investors Woodward and I have talked to over the last ten years all wanted a sure-thing, 99% of the pie, and R&D control before they were willing to plunk down significant funding that could pay for our time.  Woodward got very disgusted with the whole lot of them about the time he was diagnosed with lung cancer a few years back now, so he just stopped looking.  It didn’t help either that we kept running over IEDs in the M-E R&D road like the just discovered dielectric E-field shielding effect either.  My viewpoint on this fund raising business is that when the first G/I test article can float, or at the very least push itself across an air hockey table as a self contained propulsion unit, is the time when we start back up asking for investors, but not until then.


Well I have to say that whoever you guys talked to were scam artists, cause I've never seen that sort of a deal in any of the VC stuff I've done. Investors typically get 10-40% of the stock in the company depending on various factors. The only time I've seen a case of more than that was when Shultz needed 50 million to go from 5 Starbucks stores to 250, the guy who backed him (who was a friend of mine) basically took over the whole company and Shultz had to buy it back from him over 5 years with the success of the company.

In the case of this, if Woodward can do enough to get a patent before getting investors, then the patent is sufficient tangible assets to justify him keeping majority control of the company.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hec031 on 01/10/2010 04:29 am
"So - do we know that the Mach-Lorentz Effect is real?   If so - how does one finance an Edison-like search for the proper materials?"

Whether the M-E is real or not is in the eye of the beholder at this stage of the game.  There is enough data present to say soemthing curious is going on, but not enough high grade order of magnitude above the noise data that has been replicated in mutiple labs to say with certainty that it's for real as advertised.  As to financing, Woodward prefers not to get entangled in such schemes since he likes to work at his own self-financed pace and as his health status permits.  He is still fighting cancer...


Sounds like Bussard, cept at least he got Navy funding. Gah, capital financing isn't a 'scheme'. When it comes to investors and their money, if anything is a scheme is a false claim of scientific fact. Theres still plenty of people who are willing to toss in money even on a very speculative research project.


Mike:

The investors Woodward and I have talked to over the last ten years all wanted a sure-thing, 99% of the pie, and R&D control before they were willing to plunk down significant funding that could pay for our time.  Woodward got very disgusted with the whole lot of them about the time he was diagnosed with lung cancer a few years back now, so he just stopped looking.  It didn’t help either that we kept running over IEDs in the M-E R&D road like the just discovered dielectric E-field shielding effect either.  My viewpoint on this fund raising business is that when the first G/I test article can float, or at the very least push itself across an air hockey table as a self contained propulsion unit, is the time when we start back up asking for investors, but not until then.


Well I have to say that whoever you guys talked to were scam artists, cause I've never seen that sort of a deal in any of the VC stuff I've done. Investors typically get 10-40% of the stock in the company depending on various factors. The only time I've seen a case of more than that was when Shultz needed 50 million to go from 5 Starbucks stores to 250, the guy who backed him (who was a friend of mine) basically took over the whole company and Shultz had to buy it back from him over 5 years with the success of the company.

In the case of this, if Woodward can do enough to get a patent before getting investors, then the patent is sufficient tangible assets to justify him keeping majority control of the company.

Finding private funding for what Venture capitalist would certainly see as speculative science is next to impossible. Despite common belief Venture capitalist do not usually fund fundamental research efforts. Fundamental research is usually funded at a self or government grant level. This can and usually includes Angel investment usually small amounts and up to $2-3 Million, when you’ve reached this level you are now ready for Venture capital and by then it’s assumed you are ready for initial product development and marketing.

I think one of the issues you guys are missing is that Woodward’s device is not the only propellantless propulsion effort currently being investigated and some are even modestly funded. It’s a very quiet field of interest and you have to know one of its gate keepers to get funded. Still there is a healthy amount of work going on in this field of research. No winners yet, but some research seems promising.

In fact sometimes funding is staring you in the face, but you have to know how to read between the lines of a solicitation.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 01/10/2010 05:49 am

In fact sometimes funding is staring you in the face, but you have to know how to read between the lines of a solicitation.


do you have a link etc? this is curious.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 01/10/2010 06:59 am

I think one of the issues you guys are missing is that Woodward’s device is not the only propellantless propulsion effort currently being investigated and some are even modestly funded.

Can you give examples?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hec031 on 01/10/2010 12:49 pm

In fact sometimes funding is staring you in the face, but you have to know how to read between the lines of a solicitation.


do you have a link etc? this is curious.

I know this is going to sound strange, but there are unwritten rules and etiquette, so while I can hint in what direction to look, I would be crossing the line if I gave you the exact link.

I will suggest that you read solicitations carefully and remember that the DoD has a pre-solicitation period of 30 days when you can talk to a project manager about their solicitation directly. The solicitation is always a very condensed version of what the project manager is looking for. It’s a minimum request and you need to ask them what they are looking for? Some solicitations are very broad, that’s how this kind of research gets funded.  SBIR’s are the least scrutinized way these kinds of project can get significant funding. There are other mechanism, like subcontracting under related subject matter. This is how most fringe research is initially funded.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/11/2010 03:35 am

In fact sometimes funding is staring you in the face, but you have to know how to read between the lines of a solicitation.


do you have a link etc? this is curious.

I know this is going to sound strange, but there are unwritten rules and etiquette, so while I can hint in what direction to look, I would be crossing the line if I gave you the exact link.

I will suggest that you read solicitations carefully and remember that the DoD has a pre-solicitation period of 30 days when you can talk to a project manager about their solicitation directly. The solicitation is always a very condensed version of what the project manager is looking for. It’s a minimum request and you need to ask them what they are looking for? Some solicitations are very broad, that’s how this kind of research gets funded.  SBIR’s are the least scrutinized way these kinds of project can get significant funding. There are other mechanism, like subcontracting under related subject matter. This is how most fringe research is initially funded.


Hec031:

Thanks for the funding hints!  However we've been through that barn several times and we where shot down in the final evaluations for multiple USAF and DARPA applications.  Perhaps we got discouraged a little too easily, but it sure gets old after awhile being told that your data means nothing...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hec031 on 01/11/2010 11:37 am

In fact sometimes funding is staring you in the face, but you have to know how to read between the lines of a solicitation.


do you have a link etc? this is curious.

I know this is going to sound strange, but there are unwritten rules and etiquette, so while I can hint in what direction to look, I would be crossing the line if I gave you the exact link.

I will suggest that you read solicitations carefully and remember that the DoD has a pre-solicitation period of 30 days when you can talk to a project manager about their solicitation directly. The solicitation is always a very condensed version of what the project manager is looking for. It’s a minimum request and you need to ask them what they are looking for? Some solicitations are very broad, that’s how this kind of research gets funded.  SBIR’s are the least scrutinized way these kinds of project can get significant funding. There are other mechanism, like subcontracting under related subject matter. This is how most fringe research is initially funded.


Hec031:

Thanks for the funding hints!  However we've been through that barn several times and we where shot down in the final evaluations for multiple USAF and DARPA applications.  Perhaps we got discouraged a little too easily, but it sure gets old after awhile being told that your data means nothing...

I've had the same kind of experiences and the only thing I can say about that is that not all project managers are the same. Just don’t give up because obviously there is no clear winning concept yet.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 01/12/2010 02:52 am

In fact sometimes funding is staring you in the face, but you have to know how to read between the lines of a solicitation.


do you have a link etc? this is curious.

I know this is going to sound strange, but there are unwritten rules and etiquette, so while I can hint in what direction to look, I would be crossing the line if I gave you the exact link.

I will suggest that you read solicitations carefully and remember that the DoD has a pre-solicitation period of 30 days when you can talk to a project manager about their solicitation directly. The solicitation is always a very condensed version of what the project manager is looking for. It’s a minimum request and you need to ask them what they are looking for? Some solicitations are very broad, that’s how this kind of research gets funded.  SBIR’s are the least scrutinized way these kinds of project can get significant funding. There are other mechanism, like subcontracting under related subject matter. This is how most fringe research is initially funded.

I havent done any contract solicitation proposals in over a decade, do you have links for people to start researching pre-solicitation stuff?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kraisee on 01/12/2010 03:10 am
One of the least considered, yet most common, reasons for people to shoot down funding for projects is because there is already funding in that field going to someone else.

When a few teams are being ignored, sometimes it is because they were simply not the first to chase funding.

For a practical example, consider that DOE refuses to fund any work on the Polywell because ITER is gobbling up all the funding in that entire field.

This is precisely the same as what is happening in this field too.

Just because you don't hear about the funding, doesn't mean it isn't there.   DoD has many projects which you don't usually hear about.

Ross.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Eric_S on 01/12/2010 06:39 pm
Speaking of something else than Woodward drives, look what I stumbled upon.

Link (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24499/).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/12/2010 06:58 pm
Speaking of something else than Woodward drives, look what I stumbled upon.

Link (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24499/).


Ref my comments in this thread or the one started by G/I Thruster on Dr. Harold (Sonny) White's Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation / Hydrodynamic (QVF/MHD) work.  Several QVF based prototypes are currently under construction or being tested at the moment in my dinning room.  In my opinion Woodward's and White's approaches to propellantless propulsion are just flip sides of the same GRT/QM reality.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: LIndsey Abelard on 01/17/2010 10:22 pm
Speaking of something else than Woodward drives, look what I stumbled upon.

Link (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24499/).


Ref my comments in this thread or the one started by G/I Thruster on Dr. Harold (Sonny) White's Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation / Hydrodynamic (QVF/MHD) work.  Several QVF based prototypes are currently under construction or being tested at the moment in my dinning room.  In my opinion Woodward's and White's approaches to propellantless propulsion are just flip sides of the same GRT/QM reality.

In the other thread, you mentioned how the bulk form of the dielectric material will not work and that you need the dielectric material as alternating layers, like a superlattice structure. Can you share details about the desired characteristics of each layer as well as the desired thickness of each layer?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/18/2010 05:03 am
Speaking of something else than Woodward drives, look what I stumbled upon.

Link (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24499/).


Ref my comments in this thread or the one started by G/I Thruster on Dr. Harold (Sonny) White's Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation / Hydrodynamic (QVF/MHD) work.  Several QVF based prototypes are currently under construction or being tested at the moment in my dinning room.  In my opinion Woodward's and White's approaches to propellantless propulsion are just flip sides of the same GRT/QM reality.

In the other thread, you mentioned how the bulk form of the dielectric material will not work and that you need the dielectric material as alternating layers, like a superlattice structure. Can you share details about the desired characteristics of each layer as well as the desired thickness of each layer?

The M-E delta-m optimized layer needs to be a high-k dielectric like the Y5U barium titanate material Woodward is using and the other layer needs to be a low-k material designed to maximize the Lorentz vxB force needed to bulk accelerate the M-E optimized layer.  The thickness of each layer is driven by the acountical wavelenght of the drive frequency in the mateirals in question and the desire to minimize destructive pressure wave interference between them.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/19/2010 02:25 am
James Woodward mentioned something about the Gravity Probe B data that was interesting. He didn't go into specifics but said that the team hinted there was evidence of Machian inertial effects. I'm no physics expert, but it seems there was a LOT of noise in the experiment. The data seems to indicate an east/west frame dragging *slightly* more than expected, but the error ellipses are large.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: LIndsey Abelard on 01/22/2010 05:38 pm


In the other thread, you mentioned how the bulk form of the dielectric material will not work and that you need the dielectric material as alternating layers, like a superlattice structure. Can you share details about the desired characteristics of each layer as well as the desired thickness of each layer?

The M-E delta-m optimized layer needs to be a high-k dielectric like the Y5U barium titanate material Woodward is using and the other layer needs to be a low-k material designed to maximize the Lorentz vxB force needed to bulk accelerate the M-E optimized layer.  The thickness of each layer is driven by the acountical wavelenght of the drive frequency in the mateirals in question and the desire to minimize destructive pressure wave interference between them.

I assume the following is the desired characteristics of the high-k and low-k dielectric materials:

High-k dielectric material:
   greatest dielectric constant: >5k preferred
   5.6gm/cc or less
   operating frequency 10-50 Mhz
   operating voltage 100kV p-p
   loss tangent < 0.5% at operating frequency
   magnetic permeability >10 per layer

Low k dielectric material
   maximize Lorentz vxB force to accelerate the M-E optimized layer (high-k dielectric material)*
   operating frequency 10-50 MHz
   operating voltage 100kV p-p
   loss tangent < 0.5% at operating frequency

Thickness of each material:
   acoustical wavelength of the drive frequency in each material*
   minimize destructive pressure wave interference between material layers*

Operating lifetime of everything should be 10,000's hours or greater

*Do the presentations on Dr. Woodward's site contain the information sufficient to calculate the ideal thickness for each of the materials in the stack as well as maximization of the Lorentz vxB force on the high-k material?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/24/2010 09:51 am
Interesting read from New Scientist, on what gravity actually is. (Einstein and Newton only describe it, of course). The researcher invokes a "holographic" paradigm.

"Like the fluidity of water, gravity is not ingrained in matter itself. It is an extra physical effect"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527443.800-the-entropy-force-a-new-direction-for-gravity.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 01/31/2010 01:15 pm
What makes a flux capacitor so important in a spacedrive?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 01/31/2010 07:29 pm
Interesting read from New Scientist, on what gravity actually is. (Einstein and Newton only describe it, of course). The researcher invokes a "holographic" paradigm.

"Like the fluidity of water, gravity is not ingrained in matter itself. It is an extra physical effect"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527443.800-the-entropy-force-a-new-direction-for-gravity.html

Lubos Motl of The Reference Frame pretty convincingly demolishes this theory, calls it a new version of The Luminous Aether that Michaelson and Einstein disproved, but he does it using the example of the famous "double slit experiment."

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/erik-verlinde-why-gravity-cant-be.html


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 01/31/2010 07:32 pm
What makes a flux capacitor so important in a spacedrive?

Gravity waves, man. Woah. Heavy.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 01/31/2010 08:50 pm
What makes a flux capacitor so important in a spacedrive?

Gravity waves, man. Woah. Heavy.
U kidding? (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sandrot on 01/31/2010 09:05 pm
What makes a flux capacitor so important in a spacedrive?

Gravity waves, man. Woah. Heavy.
U kidding? (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)

Marty McFly: Wait a minute, Doc, are you trying to tell me that my mother has got the hots for me?
Dr. Emmett Brown: Precisely.
Marty McFly: Whoa, this is heavy.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/31/2010 09:36 pm
What makes a flux capacitor so important in a spacedrive?

Gravity waves, man. Woah. Heavy.
U kidding? (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)

Marty McFly: Wait a minute, Doc, are you trying to tell me that my mother has got the hots for me?
Dr. Emmett Brown: Precisely.
Marty McFly: Whoa, this is heavy.

Flux capacitor. Sounds cool, makes no sense. However, given the fact that it messes with time, I could see how it does "flux" and "capacitor" simultaneously.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 01/31/2010 09:57 pm
Flux capacitor. Sounds cool, makes no sense.

Get Tom Ligon to tell you his PXL-1 story some time...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/01/2010 01:10 am
What makes a flux capacitor so important in a spacedrive?

Gravity waves, man. Woah. Heavy.
U kidding? (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)

Marty McFly: Wait a minute, Doc, are you trying to tell me that my mother has got the hots for me?
Dr. Emmett Brown: Precisely.
Marty McFly: Whoa, this is heavy.

Flux capacitor. Sounds cool, makes no sense. However, given the fact that it messes with time, I could see how it does "flux" and "capacitor" simultaneously.

Humor aside, the phrase "Flux Capacitor" makes very good sense when taken in its proper context.  A Mach-Effect (M-E), Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) "Flux Capacitor" is an energy storing and processing capacitor structure that has a B-field flux vector running through it at right angles to the capacitor's internal E-field vector.  These time varying and crossed E- and B-fields in the capacitor dielectric create a longitudinal, (parallel to the thrust axis), Lorentz vxB force used to create the dE^2/dt^2 power flux in the capacitor and bulk accelerations of the capacitor needed to create the M-E inertial mass fluctuations, and also to force rectify these M-E derived inertial mass fluctuations into a unidirectional force.  Just as a reminder, these transient inertial mass fluctuations used in M-E devices are based on the Mach's Principle assumption that inertial mass is due to the gravitational interactions of all the mass/energy in the causally connected universe with a locally accelerated and energy verying dielectric mass.  The act of accelerating the local mass transiently shields the local mass from its cosmologically derived and gravitationally coupled mass/energy source, which is measured as a mass magnitude transient in the local accelerated mass that is simultaneously undergoing a power flux.   

Yes I know that description is rather long winded, but the M-E straddles Newtonian Physics, SRT, GRT, Mechanical, Material and Electrical engineering disciplines, so it takes a bit of descriptive effort to encapsulate what we think is going on.   And yes, Woodward contiues to obtain supporting data for his M-E conjecture in his latest Shuttler test series.  Data that he will be reporting on next month at the Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum - 2010, to be held at the John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory.

http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: SCS_18.35MeV on 02/01/2010 05:55 am
What makes a flux capacitor so important in a spacedrive?

Gravity waves, man. Woah. Heavy.
U kidding? (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)

Marty McFly: Wait a minute, Doc, are you trying to tell me that my mother has got the hots for me?
Dr. Emmett Brown: Precisely.
Marty McFly: Whoa, this is heavy.

Flux capacitor. Sounds cool, makes no sense. However, given the fact that it messes with time, I could see how it does "flux" and "capacitor" simultaneously.

Humor aside, the phrase "Flux Capacitor" makes very good sense when taken in its proper context.  A Mach-Effect (M-E), Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) "Flux Capacitor" is an energy storing and processing capacitor structure that has a B-field flux vector running through it at right angles to the capacitor's internal E-field vector.  These time varying and crossed E- and B-fields in the capacitor dielectric create a longitudinal, (parallel to the thrust axis), Lorentz vxB force used to create the dE^2/dt^2 power flux in the capacitor and bulk accelerations of the capacitor needed to create the M-E inertial mass fluctuations, and also to force rectify these M-E derived inertial mass fluctuations into a unidirectional force.  Just as a reminder, these transient inertial mass fluctuations used in M-E devices are based on the Mach's Principle assumption that inertial mass is due to the gravitational interactions of all the mass/energy in the causally connected universe with a locally accelerated and energy verying dielectric mass.  The act of accelerating the local mass transiently shields the local mass from its cosmologically derived and gravitationally coupled mass/energy source, which is measured as a mass magnitude transient in the local accelerated mass that is simultaneously undergoing a power flux.   

Yes I know that description is rather long winded, but the M-E straddles Newtonian Physics, SRT, GRT, Mechanical, Material and Electrical engineering disciplines, so it takes a bit of descriptive effort to encapsulate what we think is going on.   And yes, Woodward contiues to obtain supporting data for his M-E conjecture in his latest Shuttler test series.  Data that he will be reporting on next month at the Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum - 2010, to be held at the John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory.

http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html





Is the inertial shielding of the mass due to the acceleration of the mass, or the "time rate of change of acceleration" of the mass?

The energy change of the capacitor over time (E= (1/2)C*V**2, where V= voltage on cap) appears to be unrelated to the mass shielding effect?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/02/2010 12:21 am
What makes a flux capacitor so important in a spacedrive?

Gravity waves, man. Woah. Heavy.
U kidding? (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)

Marty McFly: Wait a minute, Doc, are you trying to tell me that my mother has got the hots for me?
Dr. Emmett Brown: Precisely.
Marty McFly: Whoa, this is heavy.

Flux capacitor. Sounds cool, makes no sense. However, given the fact that it messes with time, I could see how it does "flux" and "capacitor" simultaneously.

Humor aside, the phrase "Flux Capacitor" makes very good sense when taken in its proper context.  A Mach-Effect (M-E), Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) "Flux Capacitor" is an energy storing and processing capacitor structure that has a B-field flux vector running through it at right angles to the capacitor's internal E-field vector.  These time varying and crossed E- and B-fields in the capacitor dielectric create a longitudinal, (parallel to the thrust axis), Lorentz vxB force used to create the dE^2/dt^2 power flux in the capacitor and bulk accelerations of the capacitor needed to create the M-E inertial mass fluctuations, and also to force rectify these M-E derived inertial mass fluctuations into a unidirectional force.  Just as a reminder, these transient inertial mass fluctuations used in M-E devices are based on the Mach's Principle assumption that inertial mass is due to the gravitational interactions of all the mass/energy in the causally connected universe with a locally accelerated and energy verying dielectric mass.  The act of accelerating the local mass transiently shields the local mass from its cosmologically derived and gravitationally coupled mass/energy source, which is measured as a mass magnitude transient in the local accelerated mass that is simultaneously undergoing a power flux.   

Yes I know that description is rather long winded, but the M-E straddles Newtonian Physics, SRT, GRT, Mechanical, Material and Electrical engineering disciplines, so it takes a bit of descriptive effort to encapsulate what we think is going on.   And yes, Woodward contiues to obtain supporting data for his M-E conjecture in his latest Shuttler test series.  Data that he will be reporting on next month at the Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum - 2010, to be held at the John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory.

http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html


 ;D Thanks for that run-down. Wow, "flux capacitor" really is a good shorthand way of saying it. I always thought it was oxymoronic to store flux in a capacitor. But it does sound kinda cool...

With all this screaming about the FY2011 budget, I nevertheless detect some interesting points. Since NASA is to be re-directed towards technology development (yay!) I think there is a good chance we'll see money going towards more exotic techs like Polywell engines and maybe even gravinertial stuff.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/02/2010 04:04 am

Is the inertial shielding of the mass due to the acceleration of the mass, or the "time rate of change of acceleration" of the mass?

The energy change of the capacitor over time (E= (1/2)C*V**2, where V= voltage on cap) appears to be unrelated to the mass shielding effect?


There are both first and second order derivates in the M-E differential equation describing the creation of transient mass fluctuations that involve both the energy flux and the acceleration of a local mass.  So to create a transient inertial mass fluctuation you have to concurrently produce both a dP/dt and acceleration signature in the local mass simultaneously.  The third order derivative of acceleration called jerk is not required, but if present would amplify the basic mass fluctuation effect.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: SCS_18.35MeV on 02/02/2010 07:26 am

Is the inertial shielding of the mass due to the acceleration of the mass, or the "time rate of change of acceleration" of the mass?

The energy change of the capacitor over time (E= (1/2)C*V**2, where V= voltage on cap) appears to be unrelated to the mass shielding effect?


There are both first and second order derivates in the M-E differential equation describing the creation of transient mass fluctuations that involve both the energy flux and the acceleration of a local mass.  So to create a transient inertial mass fluctuation you have to concurrently produce both a dP/dt and acceleration signature in the local mass simultaneously.  The third order derivative of acceleration called jerk is not required, but if present would amplify the basic mass fluctuation effect.


If I have a constant acceleration, then my velocity v= v0 + a*t;
So, P= m * v = m*(v0 + at);  So, dP/dt= d(m*(v0+at))/dt = m*a;
Thus, by producing a constant acceleration, I do get a dP/dt effect.  My energy flux is solely due to the acceleration, as my energy at any instant is E=(1/2)m*v**2 in the presence of a velocity that is changing at each instant.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/02/2010 05:45 pm

Is the inertial shielding of the mass due to the acceleration of the mass, or the "time rate of change of acceleration" of the mass?

The energy change of the capacitor over time (E= (1/2)C*V**2, where V= voltage on cap) appears to be unrelated to the mass shielding effect?


There are both first and second order derivates in the M-E differential equation describing the creation of transient mass fluctuations that involve both the energy flux and the acceleration of a local mass.  So to create a transient inertial mass fluctuation you have to concurrently produce both a dP/dt and acceleration signature in the local mass simultaneously.  The third order derivative of acceleration called jerk is not required, but if present would amplify the basic mass fluctuation effect.


If I have a constant acceleration, then my velocity v= v0 + a*t;
So, P= m * v = m*(v0 + at);  So, dP/dt= d(m*(v0+at))/dt = m*a;
Thus, by producing a constant acceleration, I do get a dP/dt effect.  My energy flux is solely due to the acceleration, as my energy at any instant is E=(1/2)m*v**2 in the presence of a velocity that is changing at each instant.

Sorry, the dP/dt I was referring to is not momentum, but Power or the second derivative of energy flux d^2E/dt^2.  It's in equation 7 in the attached Woodward 2004 Origin's of Inertia paper.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 02/02/2010 07:44 pm
Paul,

Do you think there is any chance of getting any serious official support now from the new 'game-changing seeking' NASA ? Seems to me you are being hindered by lack of materials science support, wouldn't it be nice and much quicker for your research if you just gave out a dielectric spec for a hybrid part and someone just went ahead and made it for you free of charge  ! ;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: clb22 on 02/02/2010 08:03 pm
Paul,

Do you think there is any chance of getting any serious official support now from the new 'game-changing seeking' NASA ? Seems to me you are being hindered by lack of materials science support, wouldn't it be nice and much quicker for your research if you just gave out a dielectric spec for a hybrid part and someone just went ahead and made it for you free of charge  ! ;)

Everything is possible. The Tiger teams want input and will consider everything that might be groundbreaking.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 02/02/2010 08:42 pm
Paul,

Do you think there is any chance of getting any serious official support now from the new 'game-changing seeking' NASA ? Seems to me you are being hindered by lack of materials science support, wouldn't it be nice and much quicker for your research if you just gave out a dielectric spec for a hybrid part and someone just went ahead and made it for you free of charge  ! ;)


Everything is possible. The Tiger teams want input and will consider everything that might be groundbreaking.

I'd wait to see the results in Dr.Woodward's SPESIF paper though. First let's establish that transient mass fluctuations can indeed be generated. Then let's special-order materials.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/02/2010 10:19 pm
The latest test runs from his shuttler rig are encouraging, although puzzling. I thought there may be an interaction between the thrust balance and the G/I "exhaust." However the "exhaust" does not seem to impinge much on the thrust balance beam.

>EDIT< - Sorry, the thrust appeared to be downwards even when the shuttler was flipped 180 degrees.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/02/2010 11:31 pm
Paul,

Do you think there is any chance of getting any serious official support now from the new 'game-changing seeking' NASA ? Seems to me you are being hindered by lack of materials science support, wouldn't it be nice and much quicker for your research if you just gave out a dielectric spec for a hybrid part and someone just went ahead and made it for you free of charge  ! ;)


Everything is possible. The Tiger teams want input and will consider everything that might be groundbreaking.

I'd wait to see the results in Dr.Woodward's SPESIF paper though. First let's establish that transient mass fluctuations can indeed be generated. Then let's special-order materials.
Agreed. I have a hard time with things like this. While this would be so great if it was true, it doesn't pass the giggle test for me. We don't even know if this is strictly physically possible, let alone possible in the engineering or economic sense!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/03/2010 11:45 am
Paul,

Do you think there is any chance of getting any serious official support now from the new 'game-changing seeking' NASA ? Seems to me you are being hindered by lack of materials science support, wouldn't it be nice and much quicker for your research if you just gave out a dielectric spec for a hybrid part and someone just went ahead and made it for you free of charge  ! ;)


Everything is possible. The Tiger teams want input and will consider everything that might be groundbreaking.

I'd wait to see the results in Dr.Woodward's SPESIF paper though. First let's establish that transient mass fluctuations can indeed be generated. Then let's special-order materials.
Agreed. I have a hard time with things like this. While this would be so great if it was true, it doesn't pass the giggle test for me. We don't even know if this is strictly physically possible, let alone possible in the engineering or economic sense!


The one thing I've always liked about Dr. Woodward's work was that it was based on NO new physics.  His mass fluctuation conjecture rest squarely on accepted and experimentally verified theories such as Newton’s three laws of motion, Einstein's special and general relativity, Lorentz invariance, and of course Einstein's famous mass = Energy / c^2.  And no, it's NOT E= m*c^2 for that version came later.  The only element in Woodward's theoretical foundations still in dispute is how to integrate Mach's principle and its effects on the origins of inertia into GRT. 

Now you want to know what Jim has produced of late in regards to his latest shuttler test program.  I don’t want to steal Dr. Woodward’s thunder, but I’ll append a typical, but still very preliminary data plot for your review with the understanding that Dr. Woodward is still wringing out this new shuttler test set up looking for false positives that might contaminate this test series using this particular type of “soft” PZT material as the energy storage capacitor material. And as usual, using high-k cap dielectric materials makes the result time dependent and a tad flakey, so bear with Jim’s teething pains in bringing this new test article up to its full potential, but M-E potential it has.

Edit: 1. The attached data plot's X-axis is run-time in seconds.
       2. Added ARC-Lite Torque Pendulum, Vacuum Chamber & Test article

Paul
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: clb22 on 02/03/2010 05:17 pm
Paul,

Do you think there is any chance of getting any serious official support now from the new 'game-changing seeking' NASA ? Seems to me you are being hindered by lack of materials science support, wouldn't it be nice and much quicker for your research if you just gave out a dielectric spec for a hybrid part and someone just went ahead and made it for you free of charge  ! ;)


Everything is possible. The Tiger teams want input and will consider everything that might be groundbreaking.

I'd wait to see the results in Dr.Woodward's SPESIF paper though. First let's establish that transient mass fluctuations can indeed be generated. Then let's special-order materials.
Agreed. I have a hard time with things like this. While this would be so great if it was true, it doesn't pass the giggle test for me. We don't even know if this is strictly physically possible, let alone possible in the engineering or economic sense!

Surely, any project funded by NASA's new 5 billion technology groundbreaker program needs to be "serious" in nature. But hey, that new technology program has two main focuses, a few 5-year larger programs in the several hundred dollar to 1 billion dollar range and a multitude of small projects, ranging from a few hundred thousand dollars to a couple dozen of million dollars. If this one is only remotely possibly from a physical viewpoint, it should get some funding.

Hey, we got NASA style X-project funding now, let's start to use it on X-style projects!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/03/2010 05:55 pm
Folks:

When Dr. Woodward gets his current M-E proof-of-principle "Demonstrator" finished with accompanying M-E data for all to review, the normal scientific process would require other independent scientist to replicate his results at their leisure.  However that will take years to accomplish, so how can we jump start this process?  IMO, having NASA allocate approximately $1.0-to-2.0 million per year for a 3-to-5 years laboratory R&D effort to see if Woodward's M-E work can be verified and then expanded to increase its per thruster output level from micro-Newtons to Newtons and then thousands of Newtons would be well worth the effort.  Remember that if we can make this leap from M-E laboratory curiosity to working M-E thrusters, we will have equivalent specific impulse figures measured not in thousands or even tens or thousands of seconds, but trillions of seconds.  We will also have a path to building GRT's traversable wormholes or Alcubierre's warp-bubbles needed for interstellar flight that will be measured in weeks to months instead of thousands of years.  To me that would be tax dollars well spent no matter what the outcome of this R&D endeavor yields.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: clb22 on 02/03/2010 06:27 pm
To me that would be tax dollars well spent no matter what the outcome of this R&D endeavor yields.

I go even further, even if this doesn't yield any results, it would be money worth spend - just from a marketing perspective. Instead of NASA telling kids "we are building big rockets so we can do what folks back in the 1960s did already with prehistoric computers and slide rulers", NASA could say "kids, look, we might not be there yet, but we are currently funding technology that might us get even to other solar systems one day - it works like this..."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/04/2010 05:59 am
To me that would be tax dollars well spent no matter what the outcome of this R&D endeavor yields.

I go even further, even if this doesn't yield any results, it would be money worth spend - just from a marketing perspective. Instead of NASA telling kids "we are building big rockets so we can do what folks back in the 1960s did already with prehistoric computers and slide rulers", NASA could say "kids, look, we might not be there yet, but we are currently funding technology that might us get even to other solar systems one day - it works like this..."

Yeah, it does look like NASA is looking for shiny "gee whiz" tech right about now. This might be the right time, especially if the experiments come up with better evidence.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 02/04/2010 12:50 pm
To me that would be tax dollars well spent no matter what the outcome of this R&D endeavor yields.

I go even further, even if this doesn't yield any results, it would be money worth spend - just from a marketing perspective. Instead of NASA telling kids "we are building big rockets so we can do what folks back in the 1960s did already with prehistoric computers and slide rulers", NASA could say "kids, look, we might not be there yet, but we are currently funding technology that might us get even to other solar systems one day - it works like this..."

Yep, I concur. If NASA would spend part of their energy hiring sharp physicists with the explicit instructions to attempt to experimentally disprove a particular approach -- like this one-- the wheat could get separated from the chaff a lot faster.

If they were unsuccessful despite ample resources in disproving the approach, that would be a clear signal to the field "hey! something interesting is going on here!"

It also avoids the self-licking ice cream cone effect that the CRU/Mann/GSS Climategate has made evident exists in federally funded research.

Then those scientists would be working to establish the non/validity of revolutionary technologies. And that is exciting no matter what the outcome!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 02/04/2010 12:57 pm
Paul,

Do you think there is any chance of getting any serious official support now from the new 'game-changing seeking' NASA ? Seems to me you are being hindered by lack of materials science support, wouldn't it be nice and much quicker for your research if you just gave out a dielectric spec for a hybrid part and someone just went ahead and made it for you free of charge  ! ;)


Everything is possible. The Tiger teams want input and will consider everything that might be groundbreaking.

I'd wait to see the results in Dr.Woodward's SPESIF paper though. First let's establish that transient mass fluctuations can indeed be generated. Then let's special-order materials.
Agreed. I have a hard time with things like this. While this would be so great if it was true, it doesn't pass the giggle test for me. We don't even know if this is strictly physically possible, let alone possible in the engineering or economic sense!


The one thing I've always liked about Dr. Woodward's work was that it was based on NO new physics.  His mass fluctuation conjecture rest squarely on accepted and experimentally verified theories such as Newton’s three laws of motion, Einstein's special and general relativity, Lorentz invariance, and of course Einstein's famous mass = Energy / c^2.  And no, it's NOT E= m*c^2 for that version came later.  The only element in Woodward's theoretical foundations still in dispute is how to integrate Mach's principle and its effects on the origins of inertia into GRT. 

Now you want to know what Jim has produced of late in regards to his latest shuttler test program.  I don’t want to steal Dr. Woodward’s thunder, but I’ll append a typical, but still very preliminary data plot for your review with the understanding that Dr. Woodward is still wringing out this new shuttler test set up looking for false positives that might contaminate this test series using this particular type of “soft” PZT material as the energy storage capacitor material. And as usual, using high-k cap dielectric materials makes the result time dependent and a tad flakey, so bear with Jim’s teething pains in bringing this new test article up to its full potential, but M-E potential it has.

Edit: 1. The attached data plot's X-axis is run-time in seconds.
       2. Added ARC-Lite Torque Pendulum, Vacuum Chamber & Test article

Paul

Paul, this is great stuff. Far from being a problem, the thrust die-off over the course of 100 seconds is fascinating! Because I'm assuming this graph shows that the force die-off tracks with voltage die-off due to capacitor thermal issues! And taken with the conditions of vaccuum and faraday cage, that says that there is basically no possible explanation for the phenomenon observed except that it is a function of delta E changes, which are decreasing with capacitor thermal  issues.

The limits of capacitor die-off may hurt propulsion, but it's a clear signal that the theory has something physical behind it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/04/2010 09:51 pm


The one thing I've always liked about Dr. Woodward's work was that it was based on NO new physics.  His mass fluctuation conjecture rest squarely on accepted and experimentally verified theories such as Newton’s three laws of motion, Einstein's special and general relativity, Lorentz invariance, and of course Einstein's famous mass = Energy / c^2.  And no, it's NOT E= m*c^2 for that version came later.  The only element in Woodward's theoretical foundations still in dispute is how to integrate Mach's principle and its effects on the origins of inertia into GRT. 

Now you want to know what Jim has produced of late in regards to his latest shuttler test program.  I don’t want to steal Dr. Woodward’s thunder, but I’ll append a typical, but still very preliminary data plot for your review with the understanding that Dr. Woodward is still wringing out this new shuttler test set up looking for false positives that might contaminate this test series using this particular type of “soft” PZT material as the energy storage capacitor material. And as usual, using high-k cap dielectric materials makes the result time dependent and a tad flakey, so bear with Jim’s teething pains in bringing this new test article up to its full potential, but M-E potential it has.

Edit: 1. The attached data plot's X-axis is run-time in seconds.
       2. Added ARC-Lite Torque Pendulum, Vacuum Chamber & Test article

Paul


Paul, this is great stuff.  Far from being a problem, the thrust die-off over the course of 100 seconds is fascinating!  Because I'm assuming this graph shows that the force die-off tracks with voltage die-off due to capacitor thermal issues!  And taken with the conditions of vaccuum and faraday cage, that says that there is basically no possible explanation for the phenomenon observed except that it is a function of delta E changes, which are decreasing with capacitor thermal  issues.

The limits of capacitor die-off may hurt propulsion, but it's a clear signal that the theory has something physical behind it.

[/quote]

Tom:

Then you'll love all the cap thrust die-off data that litters Jim's and my lab.  For instance, in my Mach-2MHz test article in a MINWAX Faraday shield using the same 500pF at 15kV, Y5U barium titanate caps that Jim was using at the time, but alas no vaccum system, it generated a first light thrust of ~5,000 micro-Newton  running at 3.8 MHz.   (See my STAIF-2006 paper and the attached related slides.  I'm also attaching my MLT-2004 test article's typical 8-second data run's thermal evolution as they heated up for your reference.)  I literally saw the Mah-2MHz's ~1,000 uN initial thrust level at 2.15 MHz die off into the noise over a ~1.0 minute run time with semi-constant, (I was looking at the thrust scope trace most of the time), cap voltage of ~125V-p and input power.   It looks like the cap’s barium titanate’s crystalline structure is rearranging itself while its under constant load, which in turn probably kills off the piezoelectric induced radial bulk acceleration in the caps that magnifies the vxB Lorentz force in these MLTs. 

BTW, these high-k cap based M-E test articles can be resurrected if one lets them rest for several days, or bakes them in an oven above their Curie temperature for an hour or two, then letting them cool down to room temperature.  However, they never seem to last as long as they did originally.  They typically demonstrate renewed run times to thrust die off on the order of 1/2 to 3/4 the time originally demonstrated when new.  That may be great for telling the physicists that something weirdly physical is going on in these M-E tests, but it really sucks when it comes to making a reliable thruster needed for aerospace uses…

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/09/2010 01:38 am
The shuttler results seem discouraging. As you said in the newsletter, MHz or GHz freqs seem necessary for any reasonable level of thrust. Piezos just seem too "squishy" to get anything out of the noise.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/11/2010 02:21 am
The shuttler results seem discouraging. As you said in the newsletter, MHz or GHz freqs seem necessary for any reasonable level of thrust. Piezos just seem too "squishy" to get anything out of the noise.

Lampy:

The results are not discouraging to me.  They show that Woodward's scaling rules work for given the ~100 nanoNewtons Jim's device is generating at 47kHz and the fact that the M-E predicts cubic frequency scaling, it fits right in with my results operating at 2.2 and 3.8 MHz.  Jim just need to increasing his operating frequency by a couple of orders of magnitude to see some much more impressive resutls measured in milliNewtons.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: jimgagnon on 02/12/2010 05:42 pm
We will also have a path to building GRT's traversable wormholes or Alcubierre's warp-bubbles needed for interstellar flight that will be measured in weeks to months instead of thousands of years.  To me that would be tax dollars well spent no matter what the outcome of this R&D endeavor yields.

Agreed, money should be found for Dr. Woodward's efforts. I'm confused by how this research into the Mach-Lorentz effect could lead to GRT traversable wormholes or an Alcubierre drive; I was under the impression that exotic stuff such as negative energy was a prerequisite for both.

Reviewing your literature, it seems all your experiments have been run at room temperature. Do you have any thoughts on how supercooling would affect your results?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/13/2010 04:33 am
We will also have a path to building GRT's traversable wormholes or Alcubierre's warp-bubbles needed for interstellar flight that will be measured in weeks to months instead of thousands of years.  To me that would be tax dollars well spent no matter what the outcome of this R&D endeavor yields.

Agreed, money should be found for Dr. Woodward's efforts. I'm confused by how this research into the Mach-Lorentz effect could lead to GRT traversable wormholes or an Alcubierre drive; I was under the impression that exotic stuff such as negative energy was a prerequisite for both.

Reviewing your literature, it seems all your experiments have been run at room temperature. Do you have any thoughts on how supercooling would affect your results?

"I'm confused by how this research into the Mach-Lorentz effect could lead to GRT traversable wormholes or an Alcubierre drive;"

Look at the always negative second order M-E Wormhole differential term and then think about what happens when it goes more negative than the rest mass of the accelerated dielectric in question.  That my friend is a negative energy concentration/density in the same geometric configuration as the accelerated cap that can be used to create a true starship.

"Do you have any thoughts on how supercooling would affect your results?"

Not a clue other than the usual low temp effects on metallic conductivity and changing the dielectric behaviour...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 03/02/2010 11:52 am
Am I wrong that MLTs would be compact enough that, if economics of scale are good enough (if e.g. durability is a biggie), they'd allow going out and grappling debris and either bringing it down to surface or accelerating it so that it entirely burns up in re-entry?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 03/02/2010 11:31 pm
Am I wrong that MLTs would be compact enough that, if economics of scale are good enough (if e.g. durability is a biggie), they'd allow going out and grappling debris and either bringing it down to surface or accelerating it so that it entirely burns up in re-entry?

Depends on how much money you are willing to spend cleaning up the mess. All debris re-enters after a while, the smaller stuff sooner than the bigger. Certainly the big pieces such as rocket stages could be de-orbited easily.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JasonAW3 on 03/03/2010 04:25 am
Ok,

     I'm not a hundred percent certain I'm following this thread correctly, so let's see if I can break it down into something I can understand a bit better.

     What is being done here is that someone has developed a device that utilizes a little known principle of science to directly convert electricity into a form of thrust that does not use any form propelant mass to induce a momentum change and the amount of effective thrust appeares to be disproportionately large compared to amount of electrical power being put into the device?  And it appears to work just as well in a vacume as in a non-vacume environment, thus eliminating the "Electrical Wind" Effect and within a Farady Cage to eliminate any outside electrical or electromagnetic effects?
     The basic principle also seems to verify certain more escoteric theories relating to spacial distortions that could result in superluminal transitions and point to point spatial/temporal folds?

     I hope I'm following this correctly because it opens up a whole new realm of thought if true.


     I'm not trying to be a smart alec, but I am genuinely curious.  The math and principles involved here are just unfamiliar to me.


     On the other hand, I have a rather bizaar theory of my own I'd like to discuss with someone wo has a better understanding of both Quantum Physics and String Theory than myself, as well as the mathematical background to express my theory into a testable structure.  It might be on the edge of "Ooogie Boogie Science" but I am uncertain and would like to more fully express my ideas in terms that can be tested.  If I'm right, the implications might have some very interesting implications for a great many areas of physics.  I hope someone will take me seriously enough to at least discuss what I have come up with.

Thanks


Jason
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/03/2010 07:03 am
The shuttler results seem discouraging. As you said in the newsletter, MHz or GHz freqs seem necessary for any reasonable level of thrust. Piezos just seem too "squishy" to get anything out of the noise.

Lampy:

The results are not discouraging to me.  They show that Woodward's scaling rules work for given the ~100 nanoNewtons Jim's device is generating at 47kHz and the fact that the M-E predicts cubic frequency scaling, it fits right in with my results operating at 2.2 and 3.8 MHz.  Jim just need to increasing his operating frequency by a couple of orders of magnitude to see some much more impressive resutls measured in milliNewtons.

One other thing to note: the thermal issues, IMHO, in attenuating thrust, seem to dovetail with common issues that nanoscale electronic circuitry has with heat as well (i.e. why integrated chips can't perpetually scale faster, the thermal barriers swamps out electrical signals). I think that the ability of the dielectric material mass to vary based on occillation of electrostatic charge is being swamped out by thermal noise.

I suspect that if Dr. Woodward were to design in some cooling features, that performance and duration would be significantly improved. Active cooling at dry ice or liquid nitrogen temps IMHO would likely allow for more permanent operation.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 03/03/2010 09:22 am
Data that he will be reporting on next month at the Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum - 2010, to be held at the John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory.

http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html

What happened?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 03/03/2010 09:27 am
Am I wrong that MLTs would be compact enough that, if economics of scale are good enough (if e.g. durability is a biggie), they'd allow going out and grappling debris and either bringing it down to surface or accelerating it so that it entirely burns up in re-entry?

Depends on how much money you are willing to spend cleaning up the mess. All debris re-enters after a while, the smaller stuff sooner than the bigger. Certainly the big pieces such as rocket stages could be de-orbited easily.
I was thinking that the total cost (item, launch, operation etc) of a few (a few dozen) small MLT powered tugs ought to be less than that of so much debris up there.  Just a guess, I don't know how long e.g. 20-40 such little MLT snails would take to clean up a large chunk of all debris.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 03/31/2010 05:16 am
Guys, what about the mentioned errors in the Lorentz transformation?
http://www.masstheory.org/lorentz.pdf
it may prevent any further advance in field propulsion (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/01/2010 04:23 am
Guys, what about the mentioned errors in the Lorentz transformation?
http://www.masstheory.org/lorentz.pdf
it may prevent any further advance in field propulsion (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)


Whether the SR based Lorentz tranform discussed in this paper is valid or not, it has no bearing on the reality of the Lorentz force used in Woodward's MLT devices.  The Lorentz force, AKA the electrical engineering's Fleming right-hand-rule for cross product vectors (Force = q*(vxB)) is verified everytime you turn on an electric motor, fire a rail gun, or trace the trajectory of a plus or minus charged particle in a magnetic field. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: jimgagnon on 04/01/2010 04:28 am
Guys, what about the mentioned errors in the Lorentz transformation?
http://www.masstheory.org/lorentz.pdf
it may prevent any further advance in field propulsion (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)

I believe there are more rigorous ways to derive the Lorentz transformation:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#Derivation

Wouldn't be the first derivation that was initially in error yet proved useful and later validly derived.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 04/12/2010 05:41 am
Humor aside, the phrase "Flux Capacitor" makes very good sense when taken in its proper context.  A Mach-Effect (M-E), Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) "Flux Capacitor" is an energy storing and processing capacitor structure that has a B-field flux vector running through it at right angles to the capacitor's internal E-field vector.  These time varying and crossed E- and B-fields in the capacitor dielectric create a longitudinal, (parallel to the thrust axis), Lorentz vxB force used to create the dE^2/dt^2 power flux in the capacitor and bulk accelerations of the capacitor needed to create the M-E inertial mass fluctuations, and also to force rectify these M-E derived inertial mass fluctuations into a unidirectional force.  Just as a reminder, these transient inertial mass fluctuations used in M-E devices are based on the Mach's Principle assumption that inertial mass is due to the gravitational interactions of all the mass/energy in the causally connected universe with a locally accelerated and energy verying dielectric mass.
Once you build up your field, would you be able to cut off the energy input from the battery and still keep your speed in the atmosphere?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 04/12/2010 05:51 am
Once you build up your field, would you be able to cut off the energy input from the battery and still keep your speed in the atmosphere?

Depends what you mean.

It's possible to stick some MLTs on a flywheel and generate enough power to run the drive (assuming the thrust efficiency is as good as the proponents hope).  You'd need a battery or a capacitor or something to start it, but after it got past its critical speed it could power itself.

If you mean "could you just start up the drive, get up to speed, and cut the power, without immediately starting to decelerate due to drag?", then no.  These devices require continuous energy input to maintain thrust.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: bpb3 on 04/12/2010 04:16 pm

"It's possible to stick some MLTs on a flywheel and generate enough power to run the drive (assuming the thrust efficiency is as good as the proponents hope).  You'd need a battery or a capacitor or something to start it, but after it got past its critical speed it could power itself."

The mind boggles...A personal star-ship with 'easy-spin' starting just like a lawn mower....

Oh well - back to the real world,  cranky old space shuttles....
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 04/16/2010 10:03 pm
What is the most optimal shape for a MLT ship? Because from what I see it looks like a coil (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 04/18/2010 03:05 am
What is the most optimal shape for a MLT ship? Because from what I see it looks like a coil (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/grin.gif)

I seriously think a saucer would probably be best. That would give you the best combination of capsule-like simplicity and structural stability, along with aerodynamic shape because--let's face it, no matter how good your MLT driving is going to be, unless you want a slow-elevator like ascent and descent, at enormous energy expense, you're going to want to kick it in the atmosphere at respectable speeds, like Mach 3+.

The only reason airplanes are shaped the way they are (pointy with wings facing one direction) is because they have fixed external engines that need to be at the right relation to center of pressure and center of gravity.

MLT positions wouldn't affect or care about center of pressure, as long as it's relatively stable, although center of gravity still matters for that reason.

 Hence,round is best and gives the best combination of manueverability and stability. Maybe round with some small aerodynamic bias...sort of like the alien fighter ships from Independence Day, to enhance stability.

Oh, and it would scare the pants off of people... Maybe add some neon underlights for effect? ;-)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 04/18/2010 03:50 pm
What is the most optimal shape for a MLT ship? Because from what I see it looks like a coil (http://nsf.breakie.com/Smileys/default/grin.gif)

I seriously think a saucer would probably be best. That would give you the best combination of capsule-like simplicity and structural stability, along with aerodynamic shape because--let's face it, no matter how good your MLT driving is going to be, unless you want a slow-elevator like ascent and descent, at enormous energy expense, you're going to want to kick it in the atmosphere at respectable speeds, like Mach 3+.

The only reason airplanes are shaped the way they are (pointy with wings facing one direction) is because they have fixed external engines that need to be at the right relation to center of pressure and center of gravity.

MLT positions wouldn't affect or care about center of pressure, as long as it's relatively stable, although center of gravity still matters for that reason.

 Hence,round is best and gives the best combination of manueverability and stability. Maybe round with some small aerodynamic bias...sort of like the alien fighter ships from Independence Day, to enhance stability.

Oh, and it would scare the pants off of people... Maybe add some neon underlights for effect? ;-)

Sounds cool.
What kind of shielding will it use at speeds over Mach 3 in atmosphere? Or the best soultion will be to go up at LEO, accelerate and dive back again :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 04/19/2010 04:11 am
Why bother with super-sonic flight in the atmosphere?  Straight up at low sub-sonic, you'll get to near vacuum in 10 to 15 minutes.

Aerodynamic shapes are unnecessary. I think a basic cube would be easiest to build. You know it makes sense. Resistance is futile. ;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/05/2010 06:45 pm
If the MLT works on pulsed DC, will it be in the audio frequency spectrum or higher? Because if f goes up very high, then the pulsed DC will become more like normal DC and the coil will burn up since u = Ldi/dt, where i=constant, then u=0...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 05/05/2010 09:45 pm
Paul March mentioned back in January that they determined that bulk dielectric material will not work for the MLT application and that thin film materials had to be used, an stack of alternating layers of low-k and high-k dielectric materials. He also mentioned that the optimal thickness of the thin-films was based on the acoustical wavelength of the drive frequency.

Is the drive frequency the frequency of the AC current applied to the capacitors in the experiments (for example, the 2.2MHz used in one of Woodward's experiments)?

How is the acoustical wavelength calculated from this? Is it the simple frequency times wavelength equals C equation? Or is it calculated differently?

I read through some of the papers on Woodward's site as well as the presentations. Where are the equations to calculate this stuff?

Also, the presentation has it where the thrust comes from the oscillation of the Titanium atom in the TiBaO3 crystal cell. Does this mean that the dielectric material need to be single-crystal in order to make an effective MLT? As a multi-layer stack, these would need to be deposited as epitaxial layers. Is this correct?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/06/2010 04:05 am
Guys:

There appears to be a miss-understanding on the origins of the M-E in a dielectric being expressed in some of these posts.  Per Woodward's version of the M-E, (ther is another one based on near equvalent QM ideas about the nature of the QM vacuum and long range gravitational effects that traverse the universe), it takes a bulk acceleration relative to the distant stars of a concurrently energy storing dielectric before the M-E comes into play.  The greater the time rate of energy change in the capacitor dielectric per unit time and the greater the bulk accelertion of this dielectric, (the M-E is proportional to the product of these two variables), the greater the magnitude of the M-E mass fluctuations should be.  It turns out that any internal motion in the dielectric at the molecular level that cancels out over one ac cycle generates a null results in regards to the production of the M-E.  This was not abvious to Woodward and Crew until the middle of last year when Woodward finished his rotary cap experiments. 

Now to the issue of internal E-field cancellations in a dielectric by the back-EMF created by the charging molecules that make up the dielectric.  I think, but I have not yet experimetnally verify that the internal E-field in a dielectric is reduced by the a factor proportional to a factor equal 1/e-r for a give dielectric.  So one would think that in an MLT that uses the applied E-field to create a velocity vector of the internal ions used to generate the force rectification Lorenttz force, that a high-K dielectric would be at a distinct disadvanatage to a Low-k dielectric in regards to generating a force rectified M-E.  However, the M-E derivation indicates that the M-E is proportional to the square of the dielectric constant, but only varies lineraly with the applied Lorentz force, so its still better to use a higher-k dielectric than a low-k dielectric for expressing a M-E based rectified force.  In a perfect world combining both types of dielectrics in layers or stacks could be advantageous, but from the experimental data from my MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles that used monolythic e-r=2,500 and 5.000 dielectric caps respectively, it's not a hard and fast requirment.  In engineering every design is a long list of compromises... 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/07/2010 11:31 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
Is this theory better than the Heim theory?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: bocephus419 on 05/07/2010 03:25 pm
Star-Drive,

Just to clarify, does "bulk acceleration" mean that the whole cap has to move as opposed to just internal motion at the molecular level?  If so, are there any theories or papers on why that is?  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...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 05/07/2010 08:50 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
Is this theory better than the Heim theory?

Heim theory fails miserably to accurately calculate quite a number of constants.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 05/08/2010 04:15 am
So Paul since you're back on this thread, wondering if you could explain why almost all your previous posts have been deleted? 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?

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 05/08/2010 05:30 am
So Paul since you're back on this thread, wondering if you could explain why almost all your previous posts have been deleted? 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?



So far as I know, Paul isn't back...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 05/08/2010 03:07 pm
Isn't @stardrive Paul march?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive 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...

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh 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)?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: jimgagnon 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith 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."

;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh 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?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: jimgagnon 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive 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...!)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy 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...!)

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey 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.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy 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?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive 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.
Title: Why Do We Have Inertia?
Post by: sanman 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro 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
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/14/2010 05:32 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

Okay, so that's a more reasonable/acceptable answer: "We simply don't know yet."

But then the corollary to this is that we can't definitively rule out the ability to do propellant-less propulsion, since we don't know yet what causes inertia.

More also needs to be done then, to find out the origins of inertia.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/14/2010 06:35 pm
... Your opinion may differ, so we really need to be doing experiments instead of brushing this inertia issue under the rug.

Paul:

Glad you're working on this stuff.  I did not express an opinion, but rather pointed to a common source of information, which indicates a general lack of understanding on this issue.  In addition, perhaps some people are indeed suggesting "brushing this inertia issue under the rug", but I did not say that.  In the number of months since I've posted here last, I have made some math headway in the field of calculus.  Nevertheless, the key issues of Woodward's derivation of Sciama's equation remain beyond me.

I have read some of Sciama's work.  We're familiar with Einstein's thought experiment of dropping a ball in the cab of an elevator, which seems to indicate that one can't differentiate between acceleration or gravitational attraction.  Sciama suggests dropping two balls.  In an accelerating frame, the balls would move parallel to one another.  In a gravitational frame, the balls would tend to converge to the center of gravity of the nearby body.  This struck me as a good experiment to differentiate between the two types of acceleration.

And now, I've shared pretty much everything I know about this subject.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/14/2010 06:47 pm
... Your opinion may differ, so we really need to be doing experiments instead of brushing this inertia issue under the rug.

Paul:

Glad you're working on this stuff.  I did not express an opinion, but rather pointed to a common source of information, which indicates a general lack of understanding on this issue.  In addition, perhaps some people are indeed suggesting "brushing this inertia issue under the rug", but I did not say that.  In the number of months since I've posted here last, I have made some math headway in the field of calculus.  Nevertheless, the key issues of Woodward's derivation of Sciama's equation remain beyond me.

I have read some of Sciama's work.  We're familiar with Einstein's thought experiment of dropping a ball in the cab of an elevator, which seems to indicate that one can't differentiate between acceleration or gravitational attraction.  Sciama suggests dropping two balls.  In an accelerating frame, the balls would move parallel to one another.  In a gravitational frame, the balls would tend to converge to the center of gravity of the nearby body.  This struck me as a good experiment to differentiate between the two types of acceleration.

And now, I've shared pretty much everything I know about this subject.
Of course, Einstein was talking about an inertial reference frame. If the two balls were dropped far enough apart that you could tell they weren't parallel, then it would no longer be an inertial reference frame.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/14/2010 06:55 pm
Another thing - why is Lorentz-Force/Electromagnetic-Force special for this field propulsion approach? Why not any other force, like Strong Nuclear Force, for example? Presumably the different falloff-range of that different force would require an appropriately different oscillation period or amplitude to produce useful results, but why couldn't any force be used to produce this effect? What's so special about Lorentz Force? Is it just the one that's most convenient to work with on a practical level?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/14/2010 07:33 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

Furthermore, I thought the whole basis of conjecture for Higgs Boson is about inertia, since inertia is intrinsic to mass. How then is Mach's Principle reconciled with Higgs Theory? Aren't they competing ideas?

Mach's Principle says that your inertial properties are the result of the interaction of your mass with all the other masses in the universe, no matter how far away.

Higgs Theory says that your mass (and hence your inertia) properties are the result of your interaction with the Higgs field.

Are they both right? Are they each different ways of judging the same thing? Or does one inherently rule out the other?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 05/14/2010 10:02 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

Furthermore, I thought the whole basis of conjecture for Higgs Boson is about inertia, since inertia is intrinsic to mass. How then is Mach's Principle reconciled with Higgs Theory? Aren't they competing ideas?

Mach's Principle says that your inertial properties are the result of the interaction of your mass with all the other masses in the universe, no matter how far away.

Higgs Theory says that your mass (and hence your inertia) properties are the result of your interaction with the Higgs field.

Are they both right? Are they each different ways of judging the same thing? Or does one inherently rule out the other?

I believe they can both be right, I don't see how the Sciama description of inertia interferes with the Higgs mechanism description of W and Z boson mass. The Higgs field would be one component of what makes up the mass-energy of the causually connected universe.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 05/17/2010 04:03 am
If Mach's Principle is wrong, then Special and General Relativity are wrong. The central and most well known part of special relativity, m = e/c^2, says that mass and energy have an equivalence. Mass is a function of a body's resistance to acceleration (i.e. inertia), then energy must also be a function of its resistance to acceleration. This is where relativity defines the distinction between rest mass and inertial mass.

Where a Mach Effect thruster works is that since energy also has inertia, if you have a device that stores energy, like a capacitor, it should have greater inertial mass when charged than when discharged, and experimentally this is shown to be true particularly when the capacitor is under acceleration, hence the shuttler design of the ME thruster accelerates a capacitor in one direction and back in sync with the cycle of charging and discharging the capacitor.

Thus, critics of ME thruster theory are also critics of Relativity itself, and are asserting that energy does not have inertia.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: D_Dom on 05/17/2010 05:07 am
Brilliant! I have been struggling to understand the concept well enough to explain it to high school students. Energy has inertia, a charged capacitor is arguably more massive than when it has been discharged. Mach Effect thrusters synchronize the charging of capacitors to generate acceleration.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 05/17/2010 05:36 am
Brilliant! I have been struggling to understand the concept well enough to explain it to high school students. Energy has inertia, a charged capacitor is arguably more massive than when it has been discharged. Mach Effect thrusters synchronize the charging of capacitors to generate acceleration.

Thanks. Dr. Woodward has written an article about Mach Effect theory for popular consumption that he's let those of us on his private mail list read and comment on before he submits it for publication. The article helped me immensely in understanding this topic much more deeply.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 05/17/2010 05:50 am
Another thing - why is Lorentz-Force/Electromagnetic-Force special for this field propulsion approach? Why not any other force, like Strong Nuclear Force, for example? Presumably the different falloff-range of that different force would require an appropriately different oscillation period or amplitude to produce useful results, but why couldn't any force be used to produce this effect? What's so special about Lorentz Force? Is it just the one that's most convenient to work with on a practical level?

The answers for this will have to wait until Dr. Woodward's article is published. He's got some rather illuminating answers. Since the thrusters in question use electrons charging and discharging from capacitors, you would need to propose some equivalent means of rapid storage and discharge of strong nuclear forces. Essentially controlled cyclic fusion and fission, and to do so in a way that doesn't result in the energy being dissipated in radiation.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/17/2010 07:28 am
...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

Furthermore, I thought the whole basis of conjecture for Higgs Boson is about inertia, since inertia is intrinsic to mass. How then is Mach's Principle reconciled with Higgs Theory? Aren't they competing ideas?

Mach's Principle says that your inertial properties are the result of the interaction of your mass with all the other masses in the universe, no matter how far away.

Higgs Theory says that your mass (and hence your inertia) properties are the result of your interaction with the Higgs field.

Are they both right? Are they each different ways of judging the same thing? Or does one inherently rule out the other?

I believe they can both be right, I don't see how the Sciama description of inertia interferes with the Higgs mechanism description of W and Z boson mass. The Higgs field would be one component of what makes up the mass-energy of the causually connected universe.

Quantum mechanics and Einsteinian physics are both "right" in that they work. But they really are two blind people touching the tail and the trunk of the elephant. One side smells like peanuts, and the other one... doesn't.

Here are some good papers on the subject of ZPF and inertia. It also explains why the Higgs field is not an explanation of inertia, rather it's an explanation of mass - ie it's just an energy field that (electro-weak) particles soak up. The attached papers are very enlightening. Note how similar a lot of the observations are to what James Woodward notes.

http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/17/2010 04:30 pm
Another thing - why is Lorentz-Force/Electromagnetic-Force special for this field propulsion approach? Why not any other force, like Strong Nuclear Force, for example? Presumably the different falloff-range of that different force would require an appropriately different oscillation period or amplitude to produce useful results, but why couldn't any force be used to produce this effect? What's so special about Lorentz Force? Is it just the one that's most convenient to work with on a practical level?

The answers for this will have to wait until Dr. Woodward's article is published. He's got some rather illuminating answers. Since the thrusters in question use electrons charging and discharging from capacitors, you would need to propose some equivalent means of rapid storage and discharge of strong nuclear forces. Essentially controlled cyclic fusion and fission, and to do so in a way that doesn't result in the energy being dissipated in radiation.

I too want to praise your concise and succinct description of the phenomenon, which brings clarity to it and makes it easier to understand.

So then by that definition, other forces like Strong Force could conceivably be useful, if only their potential states could be made to charge and discharge fast enough.

In that case, I wouldn't worry about full-blown fission and fusion, but rather about Quantum Nucleonics and nucleonic orbitals. As we know, the nucleons (protons+neutrons) also occupy different energy states or orbitals. They can be promoted or demoted in energy, just like other bound particle systems (eg. electrons).
The problem with nucleonics is in the coupling, because you'd charge  up nucleons by hitting them with high-energy photons, both of which unfortunately have low cross-sectional area. Likewise, they discharge by radiating high-frequency gamma photons, whose energy is difficult to harvest efficiently. So in that sense, Lorentz/Electromagnetic force is the more convenient to work with - at least using today's technology.

But if our vehicle's power supply had a lot of energy to waste, then you could use it to charge and discharge bound nucleonic states at high frequency, albeit low coupling efficiency, to intensify this propulsive effect for higher acceleration.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/17/2010 04:49 pm
People have been trying to make a nuclear lasers for decades. They're also still trying to just store energy in readily releasable form in nuclear isomers, but there's been no way found to considerably alter the half-life of isomers. Stick with electrons.

All this amazing people optimism is not helping the cause. What is needed is to convince the experts. I am a skeptic of this, but don't worry about designing a spacecraft right now. If this effect works in a clearly demonstrable and repeatable manner, you are guaranteed as much funding as you want. There are a million "game-changing" technologies or effects out there based off of "enlightened" physics... The only way to separate yourself from the others is by clear and repeatable (by outside groups) experiment.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/17/2010 06:47 pm
I agree - that's why I said Electromagnetic/Lorentz force is most convenient to work with at our current level of technology.

So based on this nice description we've just been given - which seems to rely on mass-energy equivalence rather than Mach's Principle - then the faster the oscillation and the greater the difference between the states of high and low charge potential, the more propulsive force is generated.

To me, this is like swimming strokes or oar strokes. When you move your hands forward while swimming, you keep them at an angle of least drag, and then when you pull them back, you keep them at an angle of high drag.
The difference in drag between the two is what propels you forward.

So for this "asymmetric mass oscillator" that we're talking about, you'd want the fastest mechanical oscillator with the most amplitude, as well as the highest-energy-density capacitor, in order to create as much net momentum as possible. What components are then available to choose from for this purpose?

The fastest mechanical oscillators are supposed to be nanomechanical systems, but they have commensurately shorter deformation lengths for smaller amplitude. With natural tradeoff between amplitude and frequency, I suppose energy-efficiency would be the tie-breaker (ie. which oscillator has the lowest energy-consumption per oscillation cycle?)

I'm not sure which capacitors have the highest electrostatic energy density. A quick google search says the "electric double-layer capacitor" has the highest capacitance.

(Just as an aside, I've always wondered if the unique macromolecular geometry of the bucky-onion could be used to radically increase charge capacitance. Suppose you had a bucky-onion and exposed its exterior surface to a negative charge, causing its Pi-electrons to migrate inwards. This then affects the adjacent lower layer, causing its Pi-electrons to migrate inwards, and so on. Because each lower layer has progressively smaller surface area, then you get a "hydraulic brake" effect where you are concentrating more and more electrostatic potential into a smaller and smaller space. This trapping geometry could mean a much higher storage potential, on a purely volumetric basis.)

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/17/2010 07:54 pm
AFAIK the acceleration driver is actually the bulk movement of ions making up the caps, not the electrons as they make up a minute fraction of the cap rest mass. (Atomic mass of an electron is quite small...)

Therefore the actual bulk of the acceleration driver (gonna need new terminology here) is better served by being a higher fraction of the total mass of the engine. Ideally, the engine would be composed of nothing but the acceleration driver. The only thing that really pumps the drive system higher (ie nonlinear relationship) is oscillation frequency, but that has proven difficult to achieve engineering-wise in a small lab setup.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/17/2010 09:13 pm
I don't see how movement of ions helps more than movement of electrons - what seems to matter is that on the first half of the "stroke" (I'm using reciprocating piston engine terminology here) you've got more mass, and on the return part of the stroke you've got less mass.

Just like that phrase, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" - you've got a high-energy state which has greater mass than the lower-energy state. The difference in mass between the two states is of course very tiny, because of E=MC^2. But if your "piston" is oscillating frequently enough, then that small difference is going to add up with each successive stroke.

So if we're in Earth's gravitational field, and if each stroke produces net impulse, then all these little impulse-forces have to add up to an amount greater than the weight of our vehicle in order to overcome Earth's gravity.

But what if we want to conduct our experiment in a way that avoids fighting Earth's gravity? Sure, it would be nice if we could send a test apparatus to outer space, beyond the effects of Earth's gravity, but shouldn't there be a simpler way?

What if you have some kind of rotational oscillator instead of a reciprocating piston-like oscillator? Could there be some way to produce net rotational acceleration, instead of net linear acceleration? I'm just thinking out loud.

Let's say you have some kind of "torsional oscillator" or "torsion piston" - some kind of device whose job it is to spin one way and then back the other way, while pushing off of something else. So the first half of the stroke has it spinning clockwise, and the other half of the stroke has it spin back, counterclockwise. (like that dance - "The Twist")

http://www.sparknotes.com/physics/oscillations/applicationsofharmonicmotion/section1.html

So we play the same game, and create a higher energy state on the first half of the twist/stroke, and then bring it back down to a lower energy state on the return half of the twist/stroke. Since we've said that higher energy state on the first half of the stroke has more mass, then it produces more torque-reaction, while the return half of the stroke produces less torque-reaction. Same idea as your linear piston, but just in a rotational direction.

If this whole mach-lorentz idea is worth anything, then it should be able to produce rotational acceleration and not just linear acceleration. You should be able to accelerate a wheel or gyroscope faster and faster.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 05/17/2010 10:46 pm
AFAIK the acceleration driver is actually the bulk movement of ions making up the caps, not the electrons as they make up a minute fraction of the cap rest mass. (Atomic mass of an electron is quite small...)

Therefore the actual bulk of the acceleration driver (gonna need new terminology here) is better served by being a higher fraction of the total mass of the engine. Ideally, the engine would be composed of nothing but the acceleration driver. The only thing that really pumps the drive system higher (ie nonlinear relationship) is oscillation frequency, but that has proven difficult to achieve engineering-wise in a small lab setup.

Actually it is the electrons that matter, but those are details that Dr. Woodward lays out in his article, and you'll have to wait for publication unless he okays discussion about it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 05/18/2010 10:10 am
Bleh, got confused there. Went back and had a re-read of the article plus his older stuff. I think I have a better understanding of what's going on, now.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/20/2010 05:07 am
Guys:

Bulk accelerated ions in the dielectric that are under a concurrent time rate of change of their energy/stress couplings in their local environment is what causes the ambient gravinertial field around these ions to be transiently distorted or kinked.  It is these resulting transient local gravinertial field distortions around the dielectric ions that give rise to the inertial mass fluctuaions that is the M-E.  The dielectric's applied time rate of change of electric charge (electron flow) and resulting B-fields are just the necessary intermediators of the E&M forces needed to generate these Mach-Effects.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/20/2010 02:06 pm
Again, I thought it's like mlorrey said, where the mass-energy sum on one part of the reciprocating oscillation stroke is different than the mass-energy sum on the other part of the stroke, so that the resulting imbalance leads to net momentum change.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GreenGlow on 05/20/2010 05:05 pm
Again, I thought it's like mlorrey said, where the mass-energy sum on one part of the reciprocating oscillation stroke is different than the mass-energy sum on the other part of the stroke, so that the resulting imbalance leads to net momentum change.



So if you were throwing away a part of the mass during 1/2 of the cycle you would generate thrust.  I can see how that would work!  What is a "mass-energy sum"?  How can you add two different quantities (Kg and N-M).  Do you really mean Mass X energy?  No, that can't be it because kinetic energy = 1/2MV^2 so Mass X energy would be 1/2M^2V^2 (?)  What part of this am I missing?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/20/2010 05:14 pm
Again, I thought it's like mlorrey said, where the mass-energy sum on one part of the reciprocating oscillation stroke is different than the mass-energy sum on the other part of the stroke, so that the resulting imbalance leads to net momentum change.



So if you were throwing away a part of the mass during 1/2 of the cycle you would generate thrust.  I can see how that would work!  What is a "mass-energy sum"?  How can you add two different quantities (Kg and N-M).  Do you really mean Mass X energy?  No, that can't be it because kinetic energy = 1/2MV^2 so Mass X energy would be 1/2M^2V^2 (?)  What part of this am I missing?
E=m*c^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

Mass and energy are the same.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GreenGlow on 05/20/2010 08:42 pm
Quote
E=m*c^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

Mass and energy are the same.

Mass and energy are equivalent when you have the capability of fusing atoms.  Where does that occur in Woodward's device?   The OP stated something along the lines of "well we can just add mass and energy ..."  I asked "how is that done?"  In a nuclear fusion reaction mass is combined with energy being produced as mass is converted into energy.   Woodward is a phony.  He was been debunked a long time ago.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/20/2010 08:46 pm
Quote
E=m*c^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

Mass and energy are the same.

Mass and energy are equivalent when you have the capability of fusing atoms.  Where does that occur in Woodward's device?   The OP stated something along the lines of "well we can just add mass and energy ..."  I asked "how is that done?"  In a nuclear fusion reaction mass is combined with energy being produced as mass is converted into energy.   Woodward is a phony.  He was been debunked a long time ago.
I don't disagree with you.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 05/20/2010 08:59 pm
Mass and energy are equivalent when you have the capability of fusing atoms.  Where does that occur in Woodward's device?  ...  In a nuclear fusion reaction mass is combined with energy being produced as mass is converted into energy.

You've misunderstood.  Matter and energy are the same thing.  The mass that's "converted into energy" in a nuclear reaction is actually nuclear binding energy, that typically comes off as kinetic energy in the reaction products (or sometimes as one or more photons - which is really the same thing; a photon is just a packet of kinetic energy with no rest mass...).  Other forms of what we would consider energy have mass too - even a baseball has (slightly) more apparent mass after being thrown than before (from the perspective of the pitcher, of course).  Even the rest mass of an elementary particle is a form of energy.

Quote
The OP stated something along the lines of "well we can just add mass and energy ..."  I asked "how is that done?"

Actually I was under the impression that the transient inertial mass fluctuation in a Mach-effect device was supposed to be separate from the E/c^2 term and much larger.  The reason it hasn't been experimentally identified before is said to be that in ordinary circumstances it either nulls out over observational timescales or isn't large enough to detect, depending on the circumstances.  This is also why it's so difficult to harness effectively.

Quote
Woodward is a phony.  He was been debunked a long time ago.

Back that up.

He might be a "phony".  But from what I've seen it's very unlikely.  He's far more likely to simply be honestly wrong.  In fact, I think it's far more likely that he's right than that he's engaged in any kind of deliberate deception.

As for "debunked", I haven't seen anything remotely conclusive from anybody.  Have you?  If so, where?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/20/2010 09:34 pm
...He's far more likely to simply be honestly wrong. ...
I agree with that, too. I don't think he's intentionally defrauding anyone. I think it's partly wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GreenGlow on 05/21/2010 03:50 am
Quote
As for "debunked", I haven't seen anything remotely conclusive from anybody.  Have you?  If so, where?

I may have gotten Woodward's idea mixed up with the EMDrive, since they are both bogus.  Anyway here is a good article about the EMdrive-

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf

Maybe you can point me to something that purports to show that Woodward's idea is not bogus.   You know there are a lot of these "gamechanging" ideas around.  Problem is none of them ever pan out.   The first thing you have to do if you want to make any progress is to become very critical.  If you accept someones' fantastic assertions without proof, that makes you the bigger fool.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 05/21/2010 05:18 am
Woodward is a fraud because M-E hypothesis is wrong because so many other left field hypotheses like EM never panned out?  That's not critical, it's a shoddily built series of leaps of guilt by association and dogma.

Why bring up something like EMdrive when Woodward's laid out the hypothesis in numerous papers?  Why not simply show where and how his math is wrong, or that he mistook Sciama and others' meaning?

Where is the evidence that Woodward's idea is bogus, other than appeals to tradition or authority?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GreenGlow on 05/21/2010 07:09 am
Unfortunately for you that isn't how science works.  You have to prove a theory is valid and allow others to replicate your results before you can claim it is true.   Until you can do that any of these far-out theories are considered bogus.  Where is the evidence his theory is valid?  If his ideas are valid why isn't he flying a spaceship?  If I tell you the sky is green are you going to believe me just because I said it?   The fact is there are a lot of lunatics claiming all kinds effects that violate the laws of physics.  Some genuinely believe they are right but are simply ignorant of the laws of physics.  Others are charlatons trying to dupe people into investing in their idea.
JUST IN>>   I read over Woodward's paper just now.   It requires an "adjustment" to the laws of physics.   There are a lot of other neat things you can do if we can just "think outside the box" this way.   Other researchers have tried to replicate his results but have been unsuccessful.  From their results it appears his net thrust is indistinguishable from  thermal noise.   So compare the time-line of his work with known breakthroughs - Maiman's laser, high temp superconductors, etc.  By now others would have replicated his results if there was anything to it.   I don't need to prove his idea is bogus because I know it is.  You need to prove his idea is not if you want to convince me otherwise.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 05/21/2010 11:01 am
Unfortunately for you
For me?  I have no stake in Woodward's work.
Quote
You have to prove a theory is valid and allow others to replicate your results before you can claim it is true.
Hypothesis.  If it's a theory it's already got a minimum of proving work done. The flip side of that coin is that you can't dismiss something merely because you don't like it.  It has to have outstanding flaws to be dismissed that way.  What are those obvious flaws with Woodward's hypothesis?  IIRC Sciama wasn't the only one whose work is cited by Woodward.  And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Einstein (or Feynman?  One of those guys) at least at one point posit that inertia has some electromagnetic element? Is Woodward misconstruing or misrepresenting Sciama's and Mach's assertions?
Quote
  Until you can do that any of these far-out theories are considered bogus.
Long story short: until an internally consistent hypothesis has practical evidence consistent with its predictions, it's got no credibility but can't be definitively ruled out either.  Not unless some known evidence contradicts said hypothesis.
Quote
Where is the evidence his theory is valid?  If his ideas are valid why isn't he flying a spaceship?
Is there no precedent for hypotheses taking a long time to be proven right?  If man is meant to fly, why hasn't he always flown?  This is a flawed argument.
Quote
  If I tell you the sky is green are you going to believe me just because I said it?
No, but I couldn't show it false till I went out and looked.  Whether or not I estimate that the probability that it's gone green since I last looked is infinitesimal.
Quote
  The fact is there are a lot of lunatics claiming all kinds effects that violate the laws of physics.
Which says nothing about any hypothesis in particular, only a statistical population.
Quote
By now others would have replicated his results if there was anything to it.
Just a general rule of thumb, not at all rigorous scientific method.
Quote
  I don't need to prove his idea is bogus because I know it is. 
And I or anyone else wanting rigorous scientific certainty can't believe you till you demonstrate it..  See how that works?
Quote
You need to prove his idea is not if you want to convince me otherwise.
It makes no difference to me whether you believe it or not.  And the only thing that matters in the big picture is the people involved who'll either substantiate or rule out, experimentally or theoretically.  If you refuse to be involved this way, e.g. by precisely showing from A to Z how it's bogus, then your unsubstantiated opinion is irrelevant.  I certainly don't take Woodward or March or anyone for granted, but I'll take even less seriously someone who won't even show their work as Woodward and March and others have; regardless if it's flawed.

Talk is cheap.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 05/21/2010 12:29 pm
The EmDrive is progressing. The below document goes into more details of demonstration flights and early applications

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2009/10/emdrive-ceas-2009-paper.doc
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/21/2010 03:33 pm
Quote
E=m*c^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

Mass and energy are the same.

Mass and energy are equivalent when you have the capability of fusing atoms.  Where does that occur in Woodward's device?   The OP stated something along the lines of "well we can just add mass and energy ..."  I asked "how is that done?"  In a nuclear fusion reaction mass is combined with energy being produced as mass is converted into energy.   Woodward is a phony.  He was been debunked a long time ago.

Hiya,

My understanding is that energy has mass.

Please differentiate between the words "matter" and "mass".
Energy is not matter, but energy has mass.
Energy and matter are different, but mass is a property of both.

It is commonly/intuitively known that matter has mass, but the fact that energy has mass is mainly only noticed and considered by physicists.

For example, suppose you have equal amounts of matter and anti-matter inside some container, then their total mass will have some inertia.
If you anihilate the matter with the anti-matter, their combined mass is converted entirely into energy. Suppose this anihilation occurs inside the container so that the resulting X-rays/energy are prevented from escaping - to the rest of the universe outside that container, there would be no apparent change in the inertial mass before the anihilation and after the anihilation (the conversion of the matter into the energy).

So energy and matter are different forms of the same thing, and both can have inertial mass. A photon has mass due to its energy, even though that photon is pure energy, having a hypothetical "rest mass" of zero.


And yet energy is more "volatile" than matter - ie. we can shift energy around much more easily than we can shift matter.
What I'd like to know is - how can we exploit this fact for useful purposes?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GreenGlow on 05/21/2010 04:09 pm
Thruster ideas that require an adjustment to the laws of physics are science fiction.   A few years ago NASA blew away a few million dollars on their Breakthrough Physics Program (BPP).  NASA has to do this because their mission requires investing in extremely risky ideas.  As expected though all that came of this program was a lot of re-hashed science fiction.  Bidfield-Brown electrostatic thrusters, Mach effect, Alcuibre (sp?) drives, etc, etc.   When you read these papers they all have the required amount of math - lots of partial derivatives, wave functions, -it's all there.  The problem is that the underlying assumptions are WRONG.   Dressing up bad science with lots of complicated math does not make the bad science correct.   All of this defective science has been bouncing around since BPP ended.   Any serious researcher can see it is just science fiction.  Maybe sometime in the future some of it may work, but no-one knows how that will happen now.
If you want to invent something that will change how we go into space I think you have to aim for something that is achievable, given the generally accepted laws of physics.   If you are really interested in this field then stop yammering about dead-end non-scientific research and start doing something.  Build a lab in your garage.  Buy some accelerometers.  Do some experiments and be critical of the results.  Then, maybe after 5-10 years of that you may have something to talk about.  If you are really lucky you will have something but you won't talk about it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 05/21/2010 04:36 pm
Thruster ideas that require an adjustment to the laws of physics are science fiction.   A few years ago NASA blew away a few million dollars on their Breakthrough Physics Program (BPP).  NASA has to do this because their mission requires investing in extremely risky ideas.  As expected though all that came of this program was a lot of re-hashed science fiction.  Bidfield-Brown electrostatic thrusters, Mach effect, Alcuibre (sp?) drives, etc, etc.   When you read these papers they all have the required amount of math - lots of partial derivatives, wave functions, -it's all there.  The problem is that the underlying assumptions are WRONG.   Dressing up bad science with lots of complicated math does not make the bad science correct.   All of this defective science has been bouncing around since BPP ended.   Any serious researcher can see it is just science fiction.  Maybe sometime in the future some of it may work, but no-one knows how that will happen now.
If you want to invent something that will change how we go into space I think you have to aim for something that is achievable, given the generally accepted laws of physics.   If you are really interested in this field then stop yammering about dead-end non-scientific research and start doing something.  Build a lab in your garage.  Buy some accelerometers.  Do some experiments and be critical of the results.  Then, maybe after 5-10 years of that you may have something to talk about.  If you are really lucky you will have something but you won't talk about it.

Alcubierre.

The "generally accepted laws of physics" as you apparently define them cannot change the way we go into space. That's the tyranny of mass fraction.

As for your generous invitation to do something more than just talk, how about *you* put up or shut up first.

You're the one reading through and commenting on a thread titled "Propellantless Field Propulsion and application." And since you apparently have nothing other than baseless opinion to sling around, I'd say that makes you the one "yammering."

So why don't you build a replica of Woodward's experiment in your garage and show that he's wrong? Look at the ORNL paper critically and see if you can find the errors.

Then show how ORNLs results are still valid.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/21/2010 04:48 pm
Thruster ideas that require an adjustment to the laws of physics are science fiction.   A few years ago NASA blew away a few million dollars on their Breakthrough Physics Program (BPP).  NASA has to do this because their mission requires investing in extremely risky ideas.  As expected though all that came of this program was a lot of re-hashed science fiction.  Bidfield-Brown electrostatic thrusters, Mach effect, Alcuibre (sp?) drives, etc, etc.   When you read these papers they all have the required amount of math - lots of partial derivatives, wave functions, -it's all there.  The problem is that the underlying assumptions are WRONG.   Dressing up bad science with lots of complicated math does not make the bad science correct.   All of this defective science has been bouncing around since BPP ended.   Any serious researcher can see it is just science fiction.  Maybe sometime in the future some of it may work, but no-one knows how that will happen now.
If you want to invent something that will change how we go into space I think you have to aim for something that is achievable, given the generally accepted laws of physics.   If you are really interested in this field then stop yammering about dead-end non-scientific research and start doing something.  Build a lab in your garage.  Buy some accelerometers.  Do some experiments and be critical of the results.  Then, maybe after 5-10 years of that you may have something to talk about.  If you are really lucky you will have something but you won't talk about it.

Alcubierre.

The "generally accepted laws of physics" as you apparently define them cannot change the way we go into space. That's the tyranny of mass fraction.
There are plenty of ways to get into orbit that could be "cheap" and could change the way we get into orbit. None of them to the extent that these fantasy drives could, but certainly a lot cheaper than we do it now.

The biggest driver for these things to happen is just to have a really, really good reason for putting hundreds of thousands of tons into orbit every year. That will drive super-HLV-sized RLVs (1000+ tons to orbit at a time, one launch per day at multiple launch sites). On a large enough scale, it may drive the price to orbit to near the cost of fuel, which isn't that bad... $10 or $20 per kilogram-to-LEO could be the cost with known physics (though not with known economics or known engineering, etc).

I don't think we'll see that number in our lifetime or the lifetime of our children, but it's possible.

And besides, physics isn't something you can just "overthrow" if you don't like it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GreenGlow on 05/21/2010 04:57 pm
Quote
As for your generous invitation to do something more than just talk, how about *you* put up or shut up first.

My invitation is for others like you to do something more than talk.  I have been dabbling in field propulsion research for almost 10 years now.  My garage is filled with curiosities that didn't work.  If I had your naivite I would still be trying to make my first idea work.

Quote
So why don't you build a replica of Woodward's experiment in your garage and show that he's wrong? Look at the ORNL paper critically and see if you can find the errors.

Then show how ORNLs results are still valid.

I am not interested in re-testing failed ideas.  That's a .01% proposition.  The error is in the initial assumption Woodward and the other lunatics like him start with.   It is fringe science pure and simple.   
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 05/21/2010 05:03 pm
If I tell you the sky is green are you going to believe me just because I said it?   The fact is there are a lot of lunatics claiming all kinds effects that violate the laws of physics.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_flash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_flash)

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040321.html (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040321.html)

Also worth googling about green rays.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GreenGlow on 05/21/2010 05:07 pm
If I tell you the sky is green are you going to believe me just because I said it?   The fact is there are a lot of lunatics claiming all kinds effects that violate the laws of physics.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_flash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_flash)

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040321.html (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040321.html)

Also worth googling about green rays.

cheers, Martin

Yes I have seen the green flash.  But one green flash does not make the whole sky green.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 05/21/2010 07:31 pm
Quote
As for your generous invitation to do something more than just talk, how about *you* put up or shut up first.

My invitation is for others like you to do something more than talk.  I have been dabbling in field propulsion research for almost 10 years now.  My garage is filled with curiosities that didn't work.  If I had your naivite I would still be trying to make my first idea work.

Quote
So why don't you build a replica of Woodward's experiment in your garage and show that he's wrong? Look at the ORNL paper critically and see if you can find the errors.

Then show how ORNLs results are still valid.

I am not interested in re-testing failed ideas.  That's a .01% proposition.  The error is in the initial assumption Woodward and the other lunatics like him start with.   It is fringe science pure and simple.   

in that case since you've done so much work in the field I'm sure you must be very knowledgeable. Would you mind pointing out what the erroneous assumption is in Woodward's work that makes it fringe?

I'm all about determining correct assumptions, not discarding a theory because the result seems incredible.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GreenGlow on 05/21/2010 08:14 pm
Quote
in that case since you've done so much work in the field I'm sure you must be very knowledgeable. Would you mind pointing out what the erroneous assumption is in Woodward's work that makes it fringe?

I'm all about determining correct assumptions, not discarding a theory because the result seems incredible.

Besides the fact that Woodward is claiming a perpetual motion machine, his use of Sciama's formulation of Mach's principle is not in agreement with most scientists.   This is not an area that I am an expert in.  More knowledgeable people than I have cast doubt on it.   I am not interested in activities that require the generally accepted laws of physics be changed.  That falls under the realm of science fiction.
You are welcome to delude yourself further.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/21/2010 08:19 pm
Quote
in that case since you've done so much work in the field I'm sure you must be very knowledgeable. Would you mind pointing out what the erroneous assumption is in Woodward's work that makes it fringe?

I'm all about determining correct assumptions, not discarding a theory because the result seems incredible.

Besides the fact that Woodward is claiming a perpetual motion machine, his use of Sciama's formulation of Mach's principle is not in agreement with most scientists.   This is not an area that I am an expert in.  More knowledgeable people than I have cast doubt on it.   I am not interested in activities that require the generally accepted laws of physics be changed.  That falls under the realm of science fiction.
You are welcome to delude yourself further.
If there's a clear new experimental result that clearly doesn't agree with current theory, that's something to chew on. But "rearranging" current theory so that it appears to allow something fantastic and that seems to contradict established principles (like locality) is usually an indication that you're fooling yourself.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GreenGlow on 05/21/2010 08:35 pm
Quote
If there's a clear new experimental result that clearly doesn't agree with current theory, that's something to chew on. But "rearranging" current theory so that it appears to allow something fantastic and that seems to contradict established principles (like locality) is usually an indication that you're fooling yourself.

That applies to Woodward and others who are rearranging current theory.  Mach's principle or Mach's conjecture as Einstein referred to it is an interesting idea.  Unfortunately for Woodward it has not been proven.   I think it is somewhat like the way early cosmologists would claim the sun revolves around the Earth.  Maybe Mach's conjecture will be proven correct.   Right now there is insufficient proof. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/22/2010 03:57 am
JUST IN>>   I read over Woodward's paper just now.   It requires an "adjustment" to the laws of physics.   There are a lot of other neat things you can do if we can just "think outside the box" this way.   Other researchers have tried to replicate his results but have been unsuccessful.  From their results it appears his net thrust is indistinguishable from  thermal noise.   So compare the time-line of his work with known breakthroughs - Maiman's laser, high temp superconductors, etc.  By now others would have replicated his results if there was anything to it.   I don't need to prove his idea is bogus because I know it is.  You need to prove his idea is not if you want to convince me otherwise.

1. Woodward has not claimed that his theory is correct. At all. Anywhere. He has said that IF it is correct, the consequences would be profound. In addition, he has said, in the manner of all physicists everywhere, that his experimental results are consistent with his theory -- which does not rule out the possibility of an alternate explanation, but provides (some) support for his theory of grav-inertial fluctuations.

2. Every new theory requires an "adjustment" to the laws of physics. That's what makes it "new." Think GRT didn't require an "adjustment" to Newtonian physics?

3. Not only have others tried to replicate his results, 4 of 5 have gotten similar results. The ones who didn't (ORNL) and then set it up to duplicate the effect using thermal noise did NOT use the same setup, they merely then put together a separate experiment to show how the time effect of thermal noise could mimic the same force profile graph. That's a far cry from proving the other 4 setups were due to thermal noise.

I would say that Woodward & Paul March have done a disservice to the theory by not addressing the ORNL paper directly and formally, as it is still on the web and is the first source for critics who don't read too deeply. The criticism of the theory itself in the paper is just plain physically wrong, for instance (while the experimental critique is at least physically grounded.)


4. On the timeline: I would note that GRT has been around for over 60 years and it still has not been fully proven yet. (heard of frame dragging?) What about the Standard Model? Notice they built the LHC for 8 Kajillian dollars because it still has not been proven? Timelines mean nothing, some things are easy to prove, some things take time.


"I would say that Woodward & Paul March have done a disservice to the theory by not addressing the ORNL paper directly and formally, as it is still on the web and is the first source for critics who don't read too deeply."

Woodward & Tom Mahood did reply to the ORNL experimental work and article, per the attched responses from 2000 & 2001. 

As to Greenglow, I think he needs to walk the experimental gravinertial mile before commenting further.  Reading these attached ORNL response papers might be a good start along this path.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Carl G on 05/22/2010 10:38 am
Thread was being derailed/hijacked. Slightly edited back. Disruptive member removed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/22/2010 02:22 pm
...www.wired.com/...

I don't think they're the best source of scientific proof on a controversial topic.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 05/22/2010 08:25 pm
directly and formally, as it is still on the web and is the first source for critics who don't read too deeply.


Woodward & Tom Mahood did reply to the ORNL experimental work and article, per the attched responses from 2000 & 2001. 

As to Greenglow, I think he needs to walk the experimental gravinertial mile before commenting further.  Reading these attached ORNL response papers might be a good start along this path.

I had no idea these existed! thanks, Paul!

*edit 1707 EDT: MMF-1.PDF appears to be corrupt file.

curious what it would add as the other two papers are pretty conclusive on the ORNL paper
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/23/2010 05:06 am
directly and formally, as it is still on the web and is the first source for critics who don't read too deeply.


Woodward & Tom Mahood did reply to the ORNL experimental work and article, per the attched responses from 2000 & 2001. 

As to Greenglow, I think he needs to walk the experimental gravinertial mile before commenting further.  Reading these attached ORNL response papers might be a good start along this path.

I had no idea these existed! thanks, Paul!

*edit 1707 EDT: MMF-1.PDF appears to be corrupt file.

curious what it would add as the other two papers are pretty conclusive on the ORNL paper

I just tried downloading the MMF-1.pdf file from this forum and it reads fine from my end, but I'll try converting its Word.doc to a pdf file again and see if its any better for you this time, see attached.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 05/24/2010 02:33 pm
directly and formally, as it is still on the web and is the first source for critics who don't read too deeply.


Woodward & Tom Mahood did reply to the ORNL experimental work and article, per the attched responses from 2000 & 2001. 

As to Greenglow, I think he needs to walk the experimental gravinertial mile before commenting further.  Reading these attached ORNL response papers might be a good start along this path.

I had no idea these existed! thanks, Paul!

*edit 1707 EDT: MMF-1.PDF appears to be corrupt file.

curious what it would add as the other two papers are pretty conclusive on the ORNL paper

I just tried downloading the MMF-1.pdf file from this forum and it reads fine from my end, but I'll try converting its Word.doc to a pdf file again and see if its any better for you this time, see attached.

Thanks, Paul, not sure what the issue was, but the second one works for me. This is really strong, I'm reading through it.

* update later *

This was really helpful in "tieing it all together for me."

*edited 2230 EDT to cut a bunch of poorly thought-out babble. shouldn't try to make sense of GRT-ME consequences out loud, sorry
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JasonAW3 on 05/24/2010 03:06 pm
Thruster ideas that require an adjustment to the laws of physics are science fiction.   A few years ago NASA blew away a few million dollars on their Breakthrough Physics Program (BPP).  NASA has to do this because their mission requires investing in extremely risky ideas.  As expected though all that came of this program was a lot of re-hashed science fiction.  Bidfield-Brown electrostatic thrusters, Mach effect, Alcuibre (sp?) drives, etc, etc.   When you read these papers they all have the required amount of math - lots of partial derivatives, wave functions, -it's all there.  The problem is that the underlying assumptions are WRONG.   Dressing up bad science with lots of complicated math does not make the bad science correct.   All of this defective science has been bouncing around since BPP ended.   Any serious researcher can see it is just science fiction.  Maybe sometime in the future some of it may work, but no-one knows how that will happen now.
If you want to invent something that will change how we go into space I think you have to aim for something that is achievable, given the generally accepted laws of physics.   If you are really interested in this field then stop yammering about dead-end non-scientific research and start doing something.  Build a lab in your garage.  Buy some accelerometers.  Do some experiments and be critical of the results.  Then, maybe after 5-10 years of that you may have something to talk about.  If you are really lucky you will have something but you won't talk about it.

     One could also say that about the current Standard Model of physics. (More precisely, Quantum Physics).  With the rather bizaar behavior of the Pioneer priobes as tghey leave the Heliopause, the new discoveries of subatomic particles that were not predicted, Dark Matter and Dark Energy starting to fall into doubt and even the potentile of vacume energy turning out to be quite different from what has been predicted, it may be time to re-examine all of our assumptions, at least as regards to the Standard Model and Quantum Physics.

Jason

BTW: I referance a number of articles both here and on Slashdot,org as examples of what I am talking about.  I assume that most others who are interested in following this up can Google the articles, while I won't bore those who aren't with the links to these articles.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/24/2010 04:43 pm
Thruster ideas that require an adjustment to the laws of physics are science fiction.   A few years ago NASA blew away a few million dollars on their Breakthrough Physics Program (BPP).  NASA has to do this because their mission requires investing in extremely risky ideas.  As expected though all that came of this program was a lot of re-hashed science fiction.  Bidfield-Brown electrostatic thrusters, Mach effect, Alcuibre (sp?) drives, etc, etc.   When you read these papers they all have the required amount of math - lots of partial derivatives, wave functions, -it's all there.  The problem is that the underlying assumptions are WRONG.   Dressing up bad science with lots of complicated math does not make the bad science correct.   All of this defective science has been bouncing around since BPP ended.   Any serious researcher can see it is just science fiction.  Maybe sometime in the future some of it may work, but no-one knows how that will happen now.
If you want to invent something that will change how we go into space I think you have to aim for something that is achievable, given the generally accepted laws of physics.   If you are really interested in this field then stop yammering about dead-end non-scientific research and start doing something.  Build a lab in your garage.  Buy some accelerometers.  Do some experiments and be critical of the results.  Then, maybe after 5-10 years of that you may have something to talk about.  If you are really lucky you will have something but you won't talk about it.

     One could also say that about the current Standard Model of physics. (More precisely, Quantum Physics).  With the rather bizaar behavior of the Pioneer priobes as tghey leave the Heliopause, the new discoveries of subatomic particles that were not predicted, Dark Matter and Dark Energy starting to fall into doubt and even the potentile of vacume energy turning out to be quite different from what has been predicted, it may be time to re-examine all of our assumptions, at least as regards to the Standard Model and Quantum Physics.
Quantum physics is one of the most successful theories in physics. You know of contradicting evidence?


Quote
BTW: I referance a number of articles both here and on Slashdot,org...
Oh. I see. No wonder! ;)

I read slashdot.org regularly. It's pretty much a crapshoot! No, it's worse than that.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JasonAW3 on 05/24/2010 04:52 pm
Thruster ideas that require an adjustment to the laws of physics are science fiction.   A few years ago NASA blew away a few million dollars on their Breakthrough Physics Program (BPP).  NASA has to do this because their mission requires investing in extremely risky ideas.  As expected though all that came of this program was a lot of re-hashed science fiction.  Bidfield-Brown electrostatic thrusters, Mach effect, Alcuibre (sp?) drives, etc, etc.   When you read these papers they all have the required amount of math - lots of partial derivatives, wave functions, -it's all there.  The problem is that the underlying assumptions are WRONG.   Dressing up bad science with lots of complicated math does not make the bad science correct.   All of this defective science has been bouncing around since BPP ended.   Any serious researcher can see it is just science fiction.  Maybe sometime in the future some of it may work, but no-one knows how that will happen now.
If you want to invent something that will change how we go into space I think you have to aim for something that is achievable, given the generally accepted laws of physics.   If you are really interested in this field then stop yammering about dead-end non-scientific research and start doing something.  Build a lab in your garage.  Buy some accelerometers.  Do some experiments and be critical of the results.  Then, maybe after 5-10 years of that you may have something to talk about.  If you are really lucky you will have something but you won't talk about it.

     One could also say that about the current Standard Model of physics. (More precisely, Quantum Physics).  With the rather bizaar behavior of the Pioneer priobes as tghey leave the Heliopause, the new discoveries of subatomic particles that were not predicted, Dark Matter and Dark Energy starting to fall into doubt and even the potentile of vacume energy turning out to be quite different from what has been predicted, it may be time to re-examine all of our assumptions, at least as regards to the Standard Model and Quantum Physics.
Quantum physics is one of the most successful theories in physics. You know of contradicting evidence?


Quote
BTW: I referance a number of articles both here and on Slashdot,org...
Oh. I see. No wonder! ;)

I read slashdot.org regularly. It's pretty much a crapshoot! No, it's worse than that.

Only a crapshoot if you don't follow the links to the refered articles, and check their references and associated articles as well.  Might want to try that some time.

Jason
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/25/2010 07:58 pm
But what if Mach's Principle is wrong?

If the surrounding stars are many lightyears away from me, then any interaction between myself and them should take years to be felt, because of the lightspeed barrier.

Yet if I start rotating right now, I will feel the effects of rotational inertia right away, instead of it taking years to feel it.

That's an indication that my rotational inertia effects are not the result of my interaction with distant stars, but rather the result of some local interaction. But local interaction with what? Well, the local interaction between myself and local spacetime, of course.

So that then requires that this "field propulsion" concept work by generating some kind of enhanced interaction between myself and spacetime. How can that be done? How can you get traction with space itself?

I think the answer lies in the Vacuum Fluctuations which are believed to make up space. The fluctuations have a periodicity on the scale of Planck length. It's a matter of being able to produce directionally-aligned fields which can push off the momentary Planck-duration fields generated by the Vacuum Fluctuations.






Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/25/2010 08:36 pm
Furthermore, I would call such an idea "space drive" and not "star drive"

Because the name "star drive" would associate itself with Mach's Principle and interaction with distant stars, whereas the name "space drive" would associate itself with Quantum Foam and interaction with local spacetime.

Maybe for hints on how to achieve such a "foam drive" or "space drive" we could look to more mundane examples of how to deal with foam using conventional fluid mechanics.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/25/2010 08:45 pm
So, replace violating the principle of locality with violating the conservation of momentum.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 05/25/2010 09:07 pm
But what if Mach's Principle is wrong?

If the surrounding stars are many lightyears away from me, then any interaction between myself and them should take years to be felt, because of the lightspeed barrier.

Yet if I start rotating right now, I will feel the effects of rotational inertia right away, instead of it taking years to feel it.



That's the crux of the whole thing. If on principle you don't accept the possibility of instant / time traveling (what Woodward calls Wheeler-Feynman Radiation Reaction-like) aspects of grav-inertial reaction, you therefore rule out the Mach effect as the source of inertia. There's not really a way to localize it.

I can't begin to  square the circle myself but pretty clearly the ME derivations of Sciama and Woodward, while accepting that gravitational effects as understood under GRT propagate at the speed of light, insist that gravinertial effects propagate effectively instantaneously.
 
Quote


That's an indication that my rotational inertia effects are not the result of my interaction with distant stars, but rather the result of some local interaction. But local interaction with what? Well, the local interaction between myself and local spacetime, of course.

So that then requires that this "field propulsion" concept work by generating some kind of enhanced interaction between myself and spacetime. How can that be done? How can you get traction with space itself?

I think the answer lies in the Vacuum Fluctuations which are believed to make up space. The fluctuations have a periodicity on the scale of Planck length. It's a matter of being able to produce directionally-aligned fields which can push off the momentary Planck-duration fields generated by the Vacuum Fluctuations.

As Woodward mentions in most of his papers, there's no way to square SRT / GRT with vaccuum energy fluctuation  or the Mach effect because the mass density caused by the large amount of energy would curl the universe into a tiny ball.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/25/2010 10:34 pm
Tom:

"I can't begin to  square the circle myself but pretty clearly the ME derivations of Sciama and Woodward, while accepting that gravitational effects as understood under GRT propagate at the speed of light, insist that gravinertial effects propagate effectively instantaneously."

It's an observed fact that inertial reaction forces are instantaneous in nature.  Our task is to explain why this is so.  However if we have a locally invariant gravinertial field with a scalar potential of phi that is created by the mostly distant mass/energy in the causally connected universe, then you really don't need an instantaneous reaction with that same distant matter to balance the local momentum books, provided the required momentum transaction charge isn’t too large.  What you can use to balance the momentum books in this case is the local G/I field to supply the back-reaction forces, that then balances the momentum books as the inertial reaction force’s spherical G/I kink radiates out at light speed towards infinity.  The bigger the inertial reaction force, the longer it takes to balance the books.  If we really do have to supply all of this inertial transaction energy at T0, the only other way to balance the momentum books that doesn't rely on local QVF, (See Puthoff, et al.), is to appeal to either Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces that use backward and forward in time momentum propagations, or string theories that have higher spatial dimensions that can provide instantaneous wormhole like connections between the mass/energy parties concerned.

"As Woodward mentions in most of his papers, there's no way to square SRT / GRT with vaccuum energy fluctuation or the Mach effect because the mass density caused by the large amount of energy would curl the universe into a tiny ball."

Unless the G/I field uses the quantum vacuum's Plank foam wormholes as the conduit for the momentum exchanges.  In this way the 4D spacetime can remain flat.  However we are then back to needing higher dimensional theories that allow such momentum tranporting wormholes to exist.  The next question is does this reality need 5, 6 or, 11 dimensions to play...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 05/26/2010 12:24 am
But what if Mach's Principle is wrong?

If the surrounding stars are many lightyears away from me, then any interaction between myself and them should take years to be felt, because of the lightspeed barrier.

Yet if I start rotating right now, I will feel the effects of rotational inertia right away, instead of it taking years to feel it.

That's an indication that my rotational inertia effects are not the result of my interaction with distant stars, but rather the result of some local interaction. But local interaction with what? Well, the local interaction between myself and local spacetime, of course.

So that then requires that this "field propulsion" concept work by generating some kind of enhanced interaction between myself and spacetime. How can that be done? How can you get traction with space itself?

I think the answer lies in the Vacuum Fluctuations which are believed to make up space. The fluctuations have a periodicity on the scale of Planck length. It's a matter of being able to produce directionally-aligned fields which can push off the momentary Planck-duration fields generated by the Vacuum Fluctuations.


If Mach's Principle is wrong, then relativity is wrong, because Mach's Principle is really the avenue by which Relativity makes a mathematical model of Newtonian gravity that agrees with the limitations of the speed of light.

It doesnt matter that gravity is relativistically invariant, just as it doesnt matter that the speed of light is 186,000 mps when photons can be entangled and as a result communicate instantaneously.

So while gravity itself propagates at light speed, the quantum effects of gravity in creating inertial tension with all matter within the causally linked universe is instantaneous. So you can have both gravitational frame dragging caused by light speed limits AND inertia caused by instantaneous action at a distance in the same universe as you have light travelling at light speed with photons that are instantaneously entangled at great distance from each other...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/26/2010 02:38 am
...
     I have some theories about how a field effect drive WOULD interact with Space / Time, byt until I can sit down with an open minded physicist who has the math background to eithe prove or disprove my current theories, that's all that they will remain, theories....
You'd call those "conjectures", not theories, then.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 05/26/2010 10:46 am

     Again, until such time as either I am able to do the math myself, (And I am beginning to suspect that thst will be the only way I will be able to get it done) or I find a physicist with both the mathematical background and an open mind, willing to work with me, my "conjectures" will remain, as an incompletely defined, theory.

Jason

A theory is a mathematical explanation for a conjecture. A conjecture without a theory is just conjecture, a statement of assumption. Little more than a glorified opinion. Thats what you've got.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JasonAW3 on 05/26/2010 12:27 pm

     Again, until such time as either I am able to do the math myself, (And I am beginning to suspect that thst will be the only way I will be able to get it done) or I find a physicist with both the mathematical background and an open mind, willing to work with me, my "conjectures" will remain, as an incompletely defined, theory.

Jason

A theory is a mathematical explanation for a conjecture. A conjecture without a theory is just conjecture, a statement of assumption. Little more than a glorified opinion. Thats what you've got.

Theories don't have to be mathematical in nature, those are usually proofs.

However, your point is made and I am removing my posts.



Jason
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/26/2010 01:54 pm
So, replace violating the principle of locality with violating the conservation of momentum.

Well, classical conservation of momentum then holds within particular constraints or limits - specifically, it holds above the small scale. At the Planck scale, it gets drowned out by Vacuum Fluctuation effects.
For instance, isn't quantum tunneling a violation of conservation of momentum? One moment an electron is in one place, and the next moment it's been kicked somewhere else - it may have even traveled through other matter. Where did it suddenly get that momentum from, to travel elsewhere? Who kicked it? Well, the Vacuum obviously kicked it.
So there is exchange of momentum with the Vacuum - something which clearly then changes the definition or framework of Conservation of Momentum. Considering exchanges of momentum with the vacuum is not the same as classical conservation of momentum, but we need to account for this to explain quantum-scale phenomena. Mach's Principle certainly does not account for such things.

The Vacuum Fluctuations aren't just a consequence of Heisenberg's Uncertainty - it's Heisenberg's Uncertainty which is a consequence of spacetime being populated by all these dynamic fluctuations (ie. "foam")

To me, Occam's Razor demands that Heisenberg's Uncertainty and Wave-like behavior be linked to a common cause or origin - ie. quantum foam.

But how to interact with quantum foam to achieve macro-scale displacement/movement? Nobody wants their spacecraft to travel distances on the order of a Planck length. They want a spacecraft that will travel many thousands or millions of miles at least.

If only the random disordered fluctuations of the vacuum could be turned orderly, to "kick" our spacecraft in unison. That would amount to altering the DeBroglie wavelength of our spaceship.



Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/26/2010 02:37 pm
Just continuing with some thoughts...

So ordinary light is incoherent, just like our vacuum fluctuations. The whole reason a laser works, is that it's able to produce photons that are in phase. If only there was some way to apply lasing principles to the incoherence of vacuum fluctuations, to make them coherent and in phase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_inversion#Stimulated_emission

Quote
The critical detail of stimulated emission is that the induced photon has the same frequency and phase as the incident photon. In other words, the two photons are coherent. It is this property that allows optical amplification, and the production of a laser  system.


Could quantum entanglement be an answer? After all, entangled objects are in phase with respect to their interaction with the Vacuum. They're all fluctuating in unison, coherently.

Suppose then that you had a large enough mass of entangled particles.
Suppose you could make a Bose-Einstein Condensate out of a large number of very heavy atoms. You could then have a significant mass interacting coherently with the vacuum.

Could a sufficiently massive BEC be made to oscillate against the Vacuum, to behave like some kind of "mass resonator" or "momentum resonator"? (analog to the optical resonator)

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

Quote
An optical cavity or optical resonator is an arrangement of mirrors  that forms a standing wave cavity resonator for light waves. Optical cavities are a major component of lasers, surrounding the gain medium and providing feedback  of the laser light.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 05/26/2010 05:16 pm
For instance, isn't quantum tunneling a violation of conservation of momentum? One moment an electron is in one place, and the next moment it's been kicked somewhere else

As long as the electron has the same momentum before and after the jump, conservation of momentum isn't violated.  Remember, these aren't pointlike objects - they're more like probability distributions...  and conservation doesn't need to hold on timescales smaller than the Planck time (since there isn't really such a thing), so long as the before and after states do respect it...

Quote
Nobody wants their spacecraft to travel distances on the order of a Planck length. They want a spacecraft that will travel many thousands or millions of miles at least.

If only the random disordered fluctuations of the vacuum could be turned orderly, to "kick" our spacecraft in unison. That would amount to altering the DeBroglie wavelength of our spaceship.

You just described an Infinite Improbability Drive...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/26/2010 06:03 pm
So-called "atom lasers" are a relatively new technology capable of measuring Planck-scale phenomena:

http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/orion/PAPERS/D02.PDF



Matter affects the Vacuum, and the Vacuum affects matter right back.
On the macro-scale, large masses like stars and planets are able to warp spacetime (the Vacuum), and that warped space results in a gravitational pull which can compress that matter even to the point of nuclear fusion.

On the quantum scale, the Vacuum interacts with matter through Vacuum Fluctuations, giving matter its deBroglie wavelength.
A tiny electron can even "tunnel" from one location to another, after having been kicked by the Vacuum Fluctuations. Indeed, tiny particles like electrons are always seen to be "
But that which kicks something is also kicked back - if you impart momentum to a soccer ball by kicking it, then you are also being kicked back by the soccer ball, with momentum being imparted to your swinging foot.

So an electron or any other matter which has been kicked has also kicked the Vacuum back - it has also produced some reciprocal Fluctuation in the Vacuum.

Standard collision physics says that the more equal the masses that collide, the more equally the momentum between them is dsitributed.
The greater the asymmetry in mass between the colliding objects, the more the smaller mass will simply bounce back off the larger mass like a light beam being reflected.

So if we have a large coherent mass (BEC) which is kicking the Vacuum, then it is going to produce coherent waves/fluctuations in the Vacuum (laser-like?).

How can we exploit such coherent Vacuum fluctuations? How can we first detect/measure them?

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


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/26/2010 06:14 pm
As long as the electron has the same momentum before and after the jump, conservation of momentum isn't violated.  Remember, these aren't pointlike objects - they're more like probability distributions...  and conservation doesn't need to hold on timescales smaller than the Planck time (since there isn't really such a thing), so long as the before and after states do respect it...

An electron, like any other lepton, is a point charge. When you say it's a "probability distribution", that's just another way of describing the fact that the electron is being jiggled around by the Vacuum (aka. Brownian Motion). By that standard, even a speck of dust floating in water is a "probability distribution". The smaller the mass is relative to the kicks it's getting from its surroundings, the more it looks like a probability distribution. (ie. DeBroglie wavelength)

Why is there no such thing as Planck Time or Planck Length?
If an electron can get from here to the Moon without violating Conservation of Momentum, then why can't I get from here to the Moon without violating Conservation of Momentum? You've just said that exchanging momentum with the Vacuum doesn't count as a violation of Conservation of Momentum. I just have to convince enough Vacuum constituents to trade momentum with me on my terms.

Quote
You just described an Infinite Improbability Drive...

But that presumes we cannot influence the Vacuum.
Turning incoherent light into coherent laser light is not infinitely improbable if we devise the right mechanism for it. Likewise, then turning the random incoherent fluctuations of the Vacuum into coherent ones acting in phase doesn't have to be infinitely improbable, if we can find the right mechanism.

Coherent matter (eg. BEC) means coherent interaction with the Vacuum. Which means coherent exchange of momentum with the Vacuum. Which means coherent fluctuations in the Vacuum.

The atom laser should be able to help us do with momentum/kinetic-energy what the photonic laser helps us do with photonic energy.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 05/26/2010 07:33 pm
You've just said that exchanging momentum with the Vacuum doesn't count as a violation of Conservation of Momentum. I just have to convince enough Vacuum constituents to trade momentum with me on my terms.

I'm not sure you understand what momentum is.  Hint:  it has nothing to do with position...

Quote
turning the random incoherent fluctuations of the Vacuum into coherent ones acting in phase doesn't have to be infinitely improbable, if we can find the right mechanism.

It's not "infinitely improbable" anyway - that was just Douglas Adams being hyperbolic for the sake of the story...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/26/2010 08:44 pm
You've just said that exchanging momentum with the Vacuum doesn't count as a violation of Conservation of Momentum. I just have to convince enough Vacuum constituents to trade momentum with me on my terms.

I'm not sure you understand what momentum is.  Hint:  it has nothing to do with position...


p = mv

never said momentum was based on position, I said that brownian motion (kicks from the vacuum) are still changes to momentum, albeit brief ones.

A standing wave still has momentum, and that's what debroglie wave behavior is.


Quote
Quote
turning the random incoherent fluctuations of the Vacuum into coherent ones acting in phase doesn't have to be infinitely improbable, if we can find the right mechanism.

It's not "infinitely improbable" anyway - that was just Douglas Adams being hyperbolic for the sake of the story...

Yeah, I've read the books, listened to the radio show, and seen the TV series and movie, but just as the principles of a laser can manipulate random distributions of photonic states into orderly ones, likewise  so could the same principles be applied to the disorderly changes in momentum states from the vacuum.

Photons are absorbed and re-emitted via excitation and de-excitation, but momentum is absorbed and re-emitted by collisions.

Photonic lasers are rated according to their power (watts), but what would atom lasers be rated by? Their mass? In which case, what could a higher-mass atom laser do better than a lower-mass atom laser? Presumably, the higher the mass, the smaller the DeBroglie wavelength, and thus the greater the ability to measure and map out the Planck scale (aka. "quantum gravity")

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

Is quantum gravity the key to "field propulsion"?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: jimgagnon on 06/15/2010 03:14 am
Interesting article on how German researchers have shown how it is possible to create situations in the quantum world in which the effects of inertial and gravitational mass must be different. In fact, they show that these differences can be arbitrarily large.
  http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25331/
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 06/15/2010 04:49 am
never said momentum was based on position, I said that brownian motion (kicks from the vacuum) are still changes to momentum, albeit brief ones.

Brownian motion has nothing to do with quantum vacuum fluctuations.  It's just the effect of random molecular collisions.  The scale is vastly larger; you can see Brownian motion under a microscope.  And collimating it for thrust is a well-known field of technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine)...

Quantum tunneling does not result in an observable change in the momentum of the system.  If you want to "exchange momentum with the vacuum" in such a way as to be useful in pushing a spacecraft, you'll have to do it some way that ultimately transfers momentum to something real.

Elementary particles are not pointlike in the sense I think you mean.  I strongly suspect that your understanding of quantum mechanics is not nearly as good as you think it is.

Sadly, mine is none of the best either...  Is an actual quantum mechanic reading this?  My expertise is all Newtonian; some backup would be appreciated...

Interesting article on how German researchers have shown how it is possible to create situations in the quantum world in which the effects of inertial and gravitational mass must be different. In fact, they show that these differences can be arbitrarily large.
  http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25331/

Well, that's certainly encouraging...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Garrett on 06/15/2010 04:10 pm
Sadly, mine is none of the best either...  Is an actual quantum mechanic reading this?  My expertise is all Newtonian; some backup would be appreciated...
Am not a "quantum mechanic" but I like the term  :D
Does a quantum mechanic have to wear overalls, and get dirty with quarks?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 06/15/2010 04:24 pm
As long as the electron has the same momentum before and after the jump, conservation of momentum isn't violated.  Remember, these aren't pointlike objects - they're more like probability distributions...  and conservation doesn't need to hold on timescales smaller than the Planck time (since there isn't really such a thing), so long as the before and after states do respect it...

An electron, like any other lepton, is a point charge. When you say it's a "probability distribution", that's just another way of describing the fact that the electron is being jiggled around by the Vacuum (aka. Brownian Motion). By that standard, even a speck of dust floating in water is a "probability distribution". The smaller the mass is relative to the kicks it's getting from its surroundings, the more it looks like a probability distribution. (ie. DeBroglie wavelength)

No. It is not a point charge. By now we know it for sure.

Also, electron can't be envisioned as a cloud or a wave of electric charge too - the experimental data do not support this theory.

It is really a complex-valued wavefunction whose modulus integrated over some volume is the *probability* of the particle being in that volume.

The new discoveries in theoretical physics require good knowledge of the current mathematical apparatus of quantup physics and related areas (way better than I have, and I spent 5 yeads studying higher math), and the ability to produce unconventional new hypothesises.

Just the ability to produce unconventional new hypothesises without good understanding of current theories will not do any good.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/15/2010 08:25 pm
An electric is a point-mass in some aspects, but it still has a deBroglie wavelength (like everything else, basically).

...
Just the ability to produce unconventional new hypothesises without good understanding of current theories will not do any good.
If only EVERY person on the Internet understood that single sentence...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JasonAW3 on 06/15/2010 09:33 pm
FYI

Planck Time = 5.391 24(27) x 10-44 seconds, Reference;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(time)
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Planck_distance/
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?plkt


Planck Length = 1.616 252(81) x 10-35 meters, Reference;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(length)
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Planck_distance/
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?plkl|search_for=Planck+Length

Hope this helps!

Jason
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 06/16/2010 04:58 am
Sadly, mine is none of the best either...  Is an actual quantum mechanic reading this?  My expertise is all Newtonian; some backup would be appreciated...
Am not a "quantum mechanic" but I like the term  :D
Does a quantum mechanic have to wear overalls, and get dirty with quarks?

A quantum mechanic is strange, charming, and wears colored overalls. His favorite sport is spinning.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 06/16/2010 05:00 am
An electric is a point-mass in some aspects, but it still has a deBroglie wavelength (like everything else, basically).

...
Just the ability to produce unconventional new hypothesises without good understanding of current theories will not do any good.
If only EVERY person on the Internet understood that single sentence...

But then we wouldn't need acronyms like SWAG...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/16/2010 01:29 pm
Or memnonics like:

Pretty Red Horses Eat Candy
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cgrunska on 07/29/2010 06:54 pm
any new news for this?
anything on the polywell fusion reactor?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 07/29/2010 08:01 pm
any new news for this?
anything on the polywell fusion reactor?

Not really, Woodward is buying/building a new power supply last I heard.

Nebel's polywell team isn't due to announce anything until some time between November of this year and May of next year. However, the chief of the Office of Naval Research recently gave a presentation to high level military brass about future naval power, propulsion, and weaponry, and among other things, talked briefly about Polywell remaining on track and giving positive results so far and will be able to meet the Navy's needs for power for its future railgun and other energy weaponry needs. So this is encouraging even if there's no science released as of yet.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/31/2010 05:20 pm
Those interested in the Mach effect may find this latest paper interesting. It shows that a model assuming inertia is due to Unruh radiation can explain the Pioneer effect and why disc galaxies have a minimum mass. The paper claims that as accelerations decrease, the inertial mass of an object deviate significantly from its gravitational mass, causing accelerations to quantise.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3303

Readable layman take on the paper:
  http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=13651
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/03/2010 04:16 am
Those interested in the Mach effect may find this latest paper interesting. It shows that a model assuming inertia is due to Unruh radiation can explain the Pioneer effect and why disc galaxies have a minimum mass. The paper claims that as accelerations decrease, the inertial mass of an object deviate significantly from its gravitational mass, causing accelerations to quantise.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3303

Readable layman take on the paper:
  http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=13651

And lets not forget:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25331/

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1988

"Inertial and gravitational mass in quantum mechanics

Authors: E. Kajari, N.L. Harshman, E.M. Rasel, S. Stenholm, G. Süßmann, W.P. Schleich

(Submitted on 10 Jun 2010 (v1), last revised 15 Jun 2010 (this version, v2))
Abstract: We show that in complete agreement with classical mechanics, the dynamics of any quantum mechanical wave packet in a linear gravitational potential involves the gravitational and the inertial mass only as their ratio. In contrast, the spatial modulation of the corresponding energy wave function is determined by the third root of the product of the two masses. Moreover, the discrete energy spectrum of a particle constrained in its motion by a linear gravitational potential and an infinitely steep wall depends on the inertial as well as the gravitational mass with different fractional powers. This feature might open a new avenue in quantum tests of the universality of free fall."


Hmmm, now the comment that "the spatial modulation of the corresponding energy wave function is determined by the third root of the product of the two masses" sounds very familar.  Oh yes, I know, it's in one of Dr. Woodward's Mach-Effect derivation expansions that indicate that the M-E mass fluctuations are proportional to the cube of the cap dielectric energy wave's voltage.  Looks like the QM guys are finally starting to catch on...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/03/2010 02:41 pm
...
Readable layman take on the paper:
  http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=13651

I read that.  I don't even qualify as a layman!  There seems to be a difference between mass and inertia.  Speaking as a sub-layman (a step above Cro-Magnon), what the heck are we pushing against?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: jimgagnon on 08/03/2010 03:45 pm
...
Readable layman take on the paper:
  http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=13651
I read that.  I don't even qualify as a layman!  There seems to be a difference between mass and inertia.  Speaking as a sub-layman (a step above Cro-Magnon), what the heck are we pushing against?

I believe Star-Drive and Dr. Woodward would tell you that you're pushing against the combined gravitational attraction of the rest of the universe. Other physicists don't go that far (yet), but are now simply theorizing on the differences between gravitational and inertial mass.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 08/03/2010 03:59 pm
I believe that the only thing available to push against is the Dynamic Vacuum, or Quantum Foam.

After all, when any particle or object exhibits a DeBroglie wavelength, then what is pushing against it? Space itself.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cgrunska on 08/03/2010 04:40 pm
fantastic updates all around

thank you!
i love this topic
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/03/2010 05:20 pm
I can say this: "you're pushing against the combined gravitational attraction of the rest of the universe", just as easily as the next guy.  I just can't actually push on it, nor quite understand the subtleties of that paper I mentioned.  That's ok.  Carry on.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cgrunska on 08/03/2010 06:31 pm
any new news for this?
anything on the polywell fusion reactor?

Not really, Woodward is buying/building a new power supply last I heard.

Nebel's polywell team isn't due to announce anything until some time between November of this year and May of next year. However, the chief of the Office of Naval Research recently gave a presentation to high level military brass about future naval power, propulsion, and weaponry, and among other things, talked briefly about Polywell remaining on track and giving positive results so far and will be able to meet the Navy's needs for power for its future railgun and other energy weaponry needs. So this is encouraging even if there's no science released as of yet.

quick question, do you have any citation on the polywell thing, or was it just something you heard through peers?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GraphGuy on 08/03/2010 09:47 pm
any new news for this?
anything on the polywell fusion reactor?

Not really, Woodward is buying/building a new power supply last I heard.

Nebel's polywell team isn't due to announce anything until some time between November of this year and May of next year. However, the chief of the Office of Naval Research recently gave a presentation to high level military brass about future naval power, propulsion, and weaponry, and among other things, talked briefly about Polywell remaining on track and giving positive results so far and will be able to meet the Navy's needs for power for its future railgun and other energy weaponry needs. So this is encouraging even if there's no science released as of yet.

quick question, do you have any citation on the polywell thing, or was it just something you heard through peers?

Nebel and the Polywell folk aren't talking.  Go poke around the focus fusion site instead as they are getting close to proton+Boron fusion and they can talk about it.  http://focusfusion.org/

Edit:
You can find reference to the Naval presentation at talk-polywell.org but there are no concrete details because Polywell is a naval project and very much subject to press/data embargo.  I didn't mean to imply that what was said about Polywell wasn't actually said, it was.  I don't know if the Navy is blowing smoke but the Navy has a pretty good track record over the last 60 years of pushing technology into its warships so I grant them some credibility on such fantastic claims.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 08/04/2010 01:26 am
I can say this: "you're pushing against the combined gravitational attraction of the rest of the universe", just as easily as the next guy.  I just can't actually push on it, nor quite understand the subtleties of that paper I mentioned.  That's ok.  Carry on.

Okay, here's a simplification:

Imagine you are an egg inside a geodesic sphere of n facets. There are rubber bands connected to you (the egg) and every vertex of the n-geodesic (which represents the causally linked observable universe), holding you in tension in the center of the sphere. Each rubber band represents the gravitational attraction of some mass out there in the universe to you. Because you are held in tension between all of these masses, any time you try to move, there is a resistance from the opposite direction against you accelerating too quickly in that direction. The more you try to accelerate, the greater the elastic resistance.

Understand?

Now, imagine you, the egg, are falling down the event horizon of a black hole. The sphere around you is significantly distorted, with one big mass on one side with a very strong elastic band connecting you to it, and the rest of the universe distorted into a teardrop shape that comes to a point at the black hole. Eventually it is just a tube with the black hole at one end and the universe at the other.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/04/2010 03:16 pm
Quote
Imagine you are an egg inside a geodesic sphere of n facets....
That was great imagery, and seriously, I appreciate your attempt to explain.  I have read this entire thread from top to bottom, and some time ago, I rephrased my understanding of the "push-heavy, pull-light" analogy, and my feelings were hurt when an avatar made fun of my explanation.  So I had a good cry, played my favorite misoganystic rap record, and moved on.

I've been doing a good bit of reading, and am slowly brushing up on calculus.  I've read Sciama's Foundations of General Relativity and other related works, including Woodward's various published papers.  I've also read a number of the other papers posted here.  So I continue my struggle.  Just so ya know.

There is a difference between inertia and mass, but it is not well understood.  A practical application of such an intimate understanding would be the drive system that Paul March is experimenting with, and the benefits of such a drive are well known, even as the mechanics of the application remain unknown.  From the "layman's" article:

Non-baryonic (dark) matter has not yet been found; it's discovery is crucial to proving aspects of inertial theory, as is the observation and full understanding of dark energy.  Mike McCulloch is studying the Pioneer anomaly, particularly in regard to the seeming existence of, or the possibility that, "inertial mass, in fact, changes slightly under certain conditions".  If the LHC can discover the Higgs field, this understanding will shed light on the "process known as spontaneous symmetry breaking", which might explain how this field "bestows mass upon matter". 

Even tho this idea is widely accepted, others are looking at the intertia problem from a different viewpoint.  "One paper, Inertia as a Zero Point Lorentz Force, written in 1994 by Rueda, Puthoff and Haisch (RPH), represents a stalwart effort to model inertia as a back-reaction of matter to the quantum vacuum similar to the Unruh field."  I started Wiki-ing out on Unruh, and found myself gasping for breath.  Continuing with the article, "Wien’s displacement law tells us that, for a given temperature, there will be a dominant wavelength which, via the Unruh effect, is inversely proportional to the acceleration".  More gasping from me, which limits my understanding of the conclusion: "matter’s response to the vacuum is what generates inertia".

But then, McCulloch seems to suggest that, as reported by the author of the article, "as the Pioneer probes depart our solar system they experience a force due to the gravitational attraction of the sun. This force generates an acceleration which, due to its extremely small value, modifies the inertial mass of the pioneer probe. Because of this modification, the Pioneer probes, seemingly now less massive, feel a greater acceleration due to the sun than that predicted by Newtonian mechanics, creating the anomalously large acceleration."

I understand this to mean that the acceleration is in the direction of the sun.  In laymans's terms, the craft is slowing down, as confirmed by Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

"...they are slowing down slightly more than expected. The effect can be modeled as a slight additional acceleration towards the Sun."  What?  the craft is getting lighter, and instead of speeding up, it is slowing down?  No wonder they call it an anomaly!

The article then goes on to discuss what I would call the radius of the universe, R, a value of 10B ly, a size that is 10^60th larger than the Plank scale.  As the universe expands, the CMB gets lower gradually.  It is the fluctuations in that temperature, now thought to be about 2.7ş K, which leave clues as to the "physics of the early universe".  I found the imagery of the "low note" of one cycle per universe in this fluctuation to resemble the sound of "OM", but that's just me.

Then the article goes on to exceed my understanding even further, by discussing the various ratios of R to c, finally noticing that c^2/R is about equal to the anomalous Pioneer acceleration.  The article raises tantalizing expectations, but does not offer proof.

The article closes with: "Mike McCulloch, however, is arguably helping to increase momentum within this curious and remarkable area of research".  Ha-ha.  Momentum.  Get it?  No, I don't.  Speaking as a layman.  But I do understand, in general, that physics isn't complete, and I appreciated the opportunity to read the article.

I see that Mike Lorrey has made a comment on that site. 

Paul Titze quotes from Motion Mountain that: "There are many hints that point to an asymmetry in heat radiation emission."  In other words, that the acceleration has other plausible, possible explanations, including the light mill effect.  He suggests looking for simpler means of explanation for this anomalous effect. 

Ron S suggests studying the New Horizons space craft for evidence of a similar effect, but laments that we will have to wait for these details.

Just a quick peek at Woodward's refutation of the ORNL paper.  Woodward: "Alas, in the published versions of the various calculations laid out here and in the Appendixes there were several typographical errors that survived the proofing process."

Howza guy like me, who is trying to understand this stuff, also tasked with finding the errors in the presentations?   One of the first [fingerquote] errors [/fingerquote] that I found was the "sign convention", which I just flat out do not get.  Woodward: "The first “sign convention” is the assumption that inertial reaction forces – and thus the field strength that produces them – should be preceded by a minus sign."  His Appendix B explains this again, and suggests "that other sign conventions introduced below would have to be altered to maintain consistency".  Beyond my capabilities, but what would those equations say under a different sign convention?

Woodward again: "As to the allegation in the press release of the extraction of momentum from the vacuum by application of an alleged Machian effect, no such claim has ever been made. The possible propulsive use of Machian mass fluctuations has nothing whatsoever to do with vacuum effects, either classical or quantum mechanical. Neither does it constitute a fuel-less “rocket”.  What? 

Isn't that what this thread is about?  Propellantless propulsion?  I'm perfectly happy with understanding the Mach effect, even if there are no practical applications.  I thought that the simplest explanation of Paul March's work was that he proposes to convert electrical energy directly into the forward momentum of a given mass, which would be an excellent application, no?

Woodward claims that the term "vacuum" is incorrectly used in the ORNL refutation.  What is the correct term?  Do we get forward momentum?  I don't understand the subtleties here, but Woodward says "...inertial part of the gravitational field transports a momentum flux to (and from) the chiefly most distant matter in the universe..." which seems to me to imply action at a distance.  Other posters in this thread have also complained about action at a distance, because of the intantaneity of that action.  Woodward repeats: "...the momentum flux in the gravinertial field should not act like a propellant in the present [non-relativistic] circumstances".  Which would be the only forces that human travelers could withstand.

Appendix B has some additional explanation, not all of which I understand, but; "Unless the cosmic matter is dominated by substance with “exotic” or negative mass..."  Isn't it thought that cosmic matter is dominated by dark matter?  Does that affect his equations?

Appendix C has some additional info which I just don't get, either: "Now consider two test bodies with identical masses when measured in the same place."  OK.  But then he supposes that phi has two different values in two different labs.  How can that be?  It can't be; Woodward concludes: "we may conclude with certainty that all inertial reaction forces arise exclusively through the gravitational action of all of the matter in the causally connected part of the universe if the principle of relativity and the EP are correct."  Which seems to me to say that gravity fields are equivalent to inertial fields, which is a fundamental equivalence in GRT.

This stuff is fascinating, but difficult.  There went two hours of my life.  I prolly shoulda stuck with "Carry on".
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/04/2010 06:28 pm
John:

"This stuff is fascinating, but difficult.  There went two hours of my life.  I probably should-a stuck with "Carry on"."


I've spent the last 12 years plowing through this M-E and QVF stuff and I’m still just an amateur, but at least I can now follow most of what Woodward is trying to say, for a while at least, until I either use it, or lose it.  In the meanwhile why don't you get on Woodward's e-mail distribution and ask Jim some of your above questions?  Ask Jim to put you on at [email protected] .   I'm sure we will all learn something new about GRT and Mach's principal no matter how dumb the question may sound to yourself.  I know I do every time Woodward starts down explaining something in this business.


"Woodward again: "As to the allegation in the press release of the extraction of momentum from the vacuum by application of an alleged Machian effect, no such claim has ever been made. The possible propulsive use of Machian mass fluctuations has nothing whatsoever to do with vacuum effects, either classical or quantum mechanical. Neither does it constitute a fuel-less “rocket”.  What? 

Isn't that what this thread is about?  Propellantless propulsion?  I'm perfectly happy with understanding the Mach effect, even if there are no practical applications.  I thought that the simplest explanation of Paul March's work was that he proposes to convert electrical energy directly into the forward momentum of a given mass, which would be an excellent application, no?"


Now here we are into semantics.  When Jim says an M-E thruster is not a "fuel-less" thruster, I believe he is referring to two different issues.  The first is the fact that all M-E based devices have to have some minimum amount of propellant or reaction mass to accelerate and decelerate in a cyclic manner, else wise there is no M-E mass fluctuation signal to be acted on by the externally applied force rectification force.  In other words an M-E thruster is best described as a recycled-mass thruster instead of a propellantless thruster. 

The second issue is that all M-E devices require an input of local energy that is needed to accelerate and decelerate the M-E reaction-mass and make up all dissipative energy sinks like friction, etc.  Jim W. takes the conservative view that ALL the kinetic energy gain produced by an M-E thruster has to be supplied by the local power supply in the vehicle in question.  However, Andrew Palfreyman and my self’s analysis of this energy balance issue shows that there may be an additional external energy source being tapped by the M-E thrusters, and we think it may be the average kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules that make up the 13.7 billion light-year radius causally connected universe.  Sonny White on the other hand thinks this external energy source being tapped by these gravinertial (G/I) devices may be the Dark (negative) vacuum energy field that astronomers uncovered over ten years ago now.  We won’t know for sure which approach is more realistic until we make M-E thruster that have thrust levels measured in Newtons instead of milli-Newtons.

That's all for now, (I've got to get back to my day job.), but if we can make these G/I based drives actually work as the M-E and QVF theories say they could work, then cheap access to space and fast interstellar travel for the masses will finally become possible.  To me that goal is more than enough incentive to keep me banging my head against the M-E wall in hope of grabbing this G/I golden ring.  Why?  Because rockets just won't cut it!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/04/2010 06:42 pm
Paul, thanks for responding.  I just dropped Mr. Woodward a line.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 08/05/2010 07:09 pm

 Jim W. takes the conservative view that ALL the kinetic energy gain produced by an M-E thruster has to be supplied by the local power supply in the vehicle in question.  However, Andrew Palfreyman and my self’s analysis of this energy balance issue shows that there may be an additional external energy source being tapped by the M-E thrusters, and we think it may be the average kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules that make up the 13.7 billion light-year radius causally connected universe.  Sonny White on the other hand thinks this external energy source being tapped by these gravinertial (G/I) devices may be the Dark (negative) vacuum energy field that astronomers uncovered over ten years ago now.  We won’t know for sure which approach is more realistic until we make M-E thruster that have thrust levels measured in Newtons instead of milli-Newtons.


Paul,
Have you and Andres released this analysis? Or is this based on some proprietary data?

Also, wondering how the progress on the improvements to your Excel parametric tool that you've mentioned previously. (i.e. the one that tells you how much thrust you can get for what drive freq, voltage, power).

Thanks!
Tom
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/06/2010 05:02 am

 Jim W. takes the conservative view that ALL the kinetic energy gain produced by an M-E thruster has to be supplied by the local power supply in the vehicle in question.  However, Andrew Palfreyman and my self’s analysis of this energy balance issue shows that there may be an additional external energy source being tapped by the M-E thrusters, and we think it may be the average kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules that make up the 13.7 billion light-year radius causally connected universe.  Sonny White on the other hand thinks this external energy source being tapped by these gravinertial (G/I) devices may be the Dark (negative) vacuum energy field that astronomers uncovered over ten years ago now.  We won’t know for sure which approach is more realistic until we make M-E thruster that have thrust levels measured in Newtons instead of milli-Newtons.


Paul,
Have you and Andrew released this analysis? Or is this based on some proprietary data?

Also, wondering how the progress on the improvements to your Excel parametric tool that you've mentioned previously. (i.e. the one that tells you how much thrust you can get for what drive freq, voltage, power).

Thanks!
Tom

Tom:

The M-E energy balance analysis came about in a 2006 e-mail exchange with my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper reviewers that included Andrew P. and myself, so it was never published.  If I fish around my e-mail archives from that year I think I can dig it out for your review.  However, it turns around the fact that when the M-E wormhole term starts to be expressed, kinetic energy from the distant active mass in the universe that creates the local cosmological gravitational field, can be locally harvested by any M-E device for use in accelerating it and the vehicle it is attached to.  There is also the possibility about extracting enery from within the lightcone of the local gravitational field by the M-E impulse term that Woodward has not explored very much if at all, but it appears that net energy above and beyond what the local vehicle power supply can provide might also be harvested as well.  This is such a controversial area that we've tended to let it lie low until more data is in hand, but it IS the 800 pound gorilla in the M-E or QVF rooms...

BTW, I also have Sonny's analysis for the QVF version of this energy conservation argument at hand for both the local and warpdrive versions, but alas they are both proprietary data and we need Sonny's approval before I can send it out.  I'll see what I can do about that tomorrow.

As to the latest version of the M-E/QVF spreasheet, I've got it pretty much put to bed now, but it needs some new experimental data to verify its predictions before I claim victory with it.  If it does end up reflecting   reality, and that's a big if, then it becomes a great design tool for building commerical M-E devices.  A design tool I'd be loathed to just give away...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 08/06/2010 12:53 pm

The M-E energy balance analysis came about in a 2006 e-mail exchange with my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper reviewers that included Andrew P. and myself, so it was never published.  If I fish around my e-mail archives from that year I think I can dig it out for your review.  However, it turns around the fact that when the M-E wormhole term starts to be expressed, kinetic energy from the distant active mass in the universe that creates the local cosmological gravitational field, can be locally harvested by any M-E device for use in accelerating it and the vehicle it is attached to.  There is also the possibility about extracting enery from within the lightcone of the local gravitational field by the M-E impulse term that Woodward has not explored very much if at all, but it appears that net energy above and beyond what the local vehicle power supply can provide might also be harvested as well.  This is such a controversial area that we've tended to let it lie low until more data is in hand, but it IS the 800 pound gorilla in the M-E or QVF rooms...

BTW, I also have Sonny's analysis for the QVF version of this energy conservation argument at hand for both the local and warpdrive versions, but alas they are both proprietary data and we need Sonny's approval before I can send it out.  I'll see what I can do about that tomorrow.

As to the latest version of the M-E/QVF spreasheet, I've got it pretty much put to bed now, but it needs some new experimental data to verify its predictions before I claim victory with it.  If it does end up reflecting   reality, and that's a big if, then it becomes a great design tool for building commerical M-E devices.  A design tool I'd be loathed to just give away...

Thanks for the response!

Also, I wasn't asking for the tool, I just remembered that you'd discovered a problem & said that it needed to be reworked, so I was more just wondering how the output graphs have changed. Like are the graphs from your last STAIF paper still valid or do they need to be revised to show the correct "sweet spot" for reaching 1g.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 08/06/2010 12:55 pm

The M-E energy balance analysis came about in a 2006 e-mail exchange with my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 paper reviewers that included Andrew P. and myself, so it was never published.  If I fish around my e-mail archives from that year I think I can dig it out for your review.  However, it turns around the fact that when the M-E wormhole term starts to be expressed, kinetic energy from the distant active mass in the universe that creates the local cosmological gravitational field, can be locally harvested by any M-E device for use in accelerating it and the vehicle it is attached to.  There is also the possibility about extracting enery from within the lightcone of the local gravitational field by the M-E impulse term that Woodward has not explored very much if at all, but it appears that net energy above and beyond what the local vehicle power supply can provide might also be harvested as well.  This is such a controversial area that we've tended to let it lie low until more data is in hand, but it IS the 800 pound gorilla in the M-E or QVF rooms...

BTW, I also have Sonny's analysis for the QVF version of this energy conservation argument at hand for both the local and warpdrive versions, but alas they are both proprietary data and we need Sonny's approval before I can send it out.  I'll see what I can do about that tomorrow.

As to the latest version of the M-E/QVF spreasheet, I've got it pretty much put to bed now, but it needs some new experimental data to verify its predictions before I claim victory with it.  If it does end up reflecting   reality, and that's a big if, then it becomes a great design tool for building commerical M-E devices.  A design tool I'd be loathed to just give away...

Thanks for the response!

Also, I wasn't asking for the tool, I just remembered that you'd discovered a problem & said that it needed to be reworked, so I was more just wondering how the output graphs have changed. Like are the graphs from your last STAIF paper still valid or do they need to be revised to show the correct "sweet spot" for reaching 1N/W.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/07/2010 03:59 am
Tom:

"...I just remembered that you'd discovered a problem & said that it needed to be reworked, so I was more just wondering how the output graphs have changed. Like are the graphs from your last STAIF paper still valid or do they need to be revised to show the correct "sweet spot" for reaching 1N/W."

That is very much dependent on which model really governs these G/I drives.  Is it Jim's unmodified M-E very non-linear 2nd order differential equation?  Is it White's QVF/MHD ac model?  A hybrid of the two?  Or none of the above??  At this stage of the game, I don't know what the answer is yet, but hopefully the next N4700 cap based MLT test article will start telling us which way is the correct way...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 09/01/2010 10:22 pm
How is Dr. Woodward's health condition now?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/02/2010 03:58 am
How is Dr. Woodward's health condition now?

Apparently stable, though Jim continues to have go in for biweekly kemo sessions in LA, even when he is living in CO for the summer.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/02/2010 01:52 pm
Folks:

I've not made much progress on my Mach Effect (M-E) experiments due to my family responsibilities of late, but I’ve had a recent e-mail exchange with Jim Woodward’s M-E group that may be of interest to you.  It started with us reviewing Dr. Woodward’s latest version of his SPESIF-2011 Stargate paper that will be published early next year.  Here is the excerpt from Woodward’s future paper in question:

 “Gravitational potential energy may not be localizable, as required by the EEP, in GRT, but that does NOT mean that gravitational potential energy can be ignored.  Indeed, we find that the total gravitational potential energy, E-grav, of a body with mass m is just:
 
E-grav = m*phi = m*c^2                                (18)
                       
The obvious generalization of this observation is that the masses of material objects in the universe arise because of their gravitational potential energy whose source is the rest of the matter in the universe.  Thus we see that Mach’s principle not only identifies the source of inertial reaction forces as the gravitational action of chiefly distant matter, it also identifies the origin of mass itself as gravitational potential energy.”


I followed up this excerpt with the following three e-mail posts entitled "Mach's Gravitational Potential Energy as the Source of "Atomic" Power":

1.
“As I said this morning, the above excerpt from Jim W.’s 2011 Stargate paper really drives home the point for me that “atomic power” in reality may be the percentage of gravitational potential energy that is converted into kinetic energy of the atomic fragments when combining (fusion) or fracturing (fission) atomic nuclei.  This also points out where most, (sans the M-E wormhole contribution), of the M-E drive’s energy excesses may be coming from, for every time we create a force rectified delta-mass signature, a small amount of this gravitational potential energy could be converted into the net kinetic energy of the M-E drive’s cap-ring.”

2.
“You already know of the ongoing energy & momentum conservation discussion/argument that Jim W., Andrew P., John Cole and I have been having since John C. peered reviewed my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-I paper back in 2006.  Jim W. has always admitted that the Mach-Effect (M-E)’s wormhole term allowed for the possibility of energy and momentum (momenergy) exchanges between the locally accelerated M-E device and the Far Off Active Mass (FOAM) of the causally connected universe.  Well here is a means to balance the momenergy books when using the M-E’s local impulse term as done in some versions of M-E thrusters. 
 
Jim apparently knows about this M-E feature per his earlier e-mail comment to me from this morning, but he has neglected to hammer home the point to us thick headed engineers.  However, if Mach’s principle’s requirement that the origin of the energy contained in mass via Einstein’s E= m*phi = m*c^2 relationship holds, (it does), and it is in fact created by the gravitational potential energy of the causally connected universe, then on every force-rectified mass-fluctuation cycle of an M-E device, a small percentage of the M-E device’s dielectric mass’s gravitational potential energy (GPE) could be converted into the ever increasing directed kinetic energy of the operating M-E thruster in question. 
 
Of course we would then have to supply the subatomic mechanism that is converting the GPE of the local mass into kinetic energy via some type of particle physics model since atomic force interactions require some kind of exchange of particles between the potential and kinetic energy states.  Perhaps we might detect some type of subatomic particle flux made up of say electrically charged muons in the direction of the M-E thruster’s thrust vector, but it certainly does make one start to wonder about the need for more radiation instrumentation when operating these devices, at least at the higher thrust levels.
 
BTW, in essence what this surmise may mean is that the M-E or related gravinertial (G/I) devices can extract kinetic energy from the cosmological gravitational potential energy field with the appropriate use of low level, time varying electric and magnetic fields that are applied to a bulk accelerated and power varying dielectric materials.  This is far more elegant than breaking atoms or having to fuse atoms together to get at this energy source, and it provides an iron clad means of limiting the power levels harvested by the M-E device for any given power cycle by simply adjusting the magnitudes and phases of the applied electric and magnetic fields in the M-E device.  In a linear world at least…”

And lastly from me:
3.
“It is my understanding that the M-E impulse term can provide mass fluctuations in a local mass, but no NET energy transfers to/from the cosmological Far Off Active Mass (FOAM).  Without being able to express the M-E's wormhole term that evokes real microscopic GRT based wormholes that can conduct real net momenergy from the locally accelerated mass to/from the FOAM there is no viable means for transferring momenergy from the FOAM to/from the locally accelerated mass.  However, you can still use the M-E’s mass fluctuations created by the Cramer like transactional G/I momentum waves needed to push heavy / pull light, but your vehicle’s locally gained kinetic energy has to supplied by an on-board energy source such as vehicle batteries, nuclear reactors, etc.  That is the case unless you can extract part or all of the required M-E device’s push/pull power from the dielectric’s LOCAL (inside the light cone) gravitational potential energy in its mass, or by evoking the M-E wormhole term.”

Food for thought…
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 09/02/2010 03:44 pm
So...are you saying it's basically impossible to build an M/E device with a T/W >1?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae 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. :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 09/04/2010 05:05 pm
nice... now... what does all that means in layman terms? :D  :P
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive 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...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 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?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder 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
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae 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...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae 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?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy 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?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy 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.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith 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
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith 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?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikorangester 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
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kraisee 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh 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?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula 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?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 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
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikorangester 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?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikorangester 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro 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?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Patchouli 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Patchouli 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow 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).

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikorangester 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
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro 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"?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 11/08/2010 05:34 pm
Looks like Oogie Boogie scientist to me.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 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...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor 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?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 11/08/2010 08:25 pm
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...

So what you're really saying is that through some mechanism (that I don't understand at all) there is some acceleration/boost/increase in kinetic energy. And this energy is accounted for by E=mc^2, which you refer to as gravitational potential energy, but most people call rest-mass energy.

Aren't you describing the theoretical limit of rocket propulsion? How is your idea fundamentally different from this:

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

Are you counting photons as propellant? Would you count gravitons as propellant? If not, why not?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikorangester on 11/09/2010 12:39 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"?

Its an approximation only. The model is what is interesting, well to me anyway. Reactions? Thought I was indicating that there are models out there that shows propellantless field propulsion not only to be workable but within technological reach, or is simple explanations not egg headish enough?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: khallow on 11/09/2010 04:05 pm

Its an approximation only. The model is what is interesting, well to me anyway. Reactions? Thought I was indicating that there are models out there that shows propellantless field propulsion not only to be workable but within technological reach, or is simple explanations not egg headish enough?

Your explanation has obvious flaws. In addition to what John noticed, changing the radius of orbit of an electron wouldn't shift the center of gravity. Any oscillating signal will also pull as much as it pushes (so no net movement of a targeted atom). And someone else pointed out other notable flaws in the model (such as transparency of ordinary matter to the photons of these frequencies and arbitrary choice of frequencies).

Ultimately, as mentioned before, this is a rather fancy solar sail. And we don't require production of focused gamma rays or materials which are opaque to gamma rays.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikorangester on 11/11/2010 01:21 pm

Its an approximation only. The model is what is interesting, well to me anyway. Reactions? Thought I was indicating that there are models out there that shows propellantless field propulsion not only to be workable but within technological reach, or is simple explanations not egg headish enough?

Your explanation has obvious flaws. In addition to what John noticed, changing the radius of orbit of an electron wouldn't shift the center of gravity. Any oscillating signal will also pull as much as it pushes (so no net movement of a targeted atom). And someone else pointed out other notable flaws in the model (such as transparency of ordinary matter to the photons of these frequencies and arbitrary choice of frequencies).

Ultimately, as mentioned before, this is a rather fancy solar sail. And we don't require production of focused gamma rays or materials which are opaque to gamma rays.



OK. You know everything even when you are wrong.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 11/11/2010 02:08 pm
Why say he's wrong without detailing how; demonstrating it?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 11/12/2010 07:34 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...

So what you're really saying is that through some mechanism (that I don't understand at all) there is some acceleration/boost/increase in kinetic energy. And this energy is accounted for by E=mc^2, which you refer to as gravitational potential energy, but most people call rest-mass energy.

Aren't you describing the theoretical limit of rocket propulsion? How is your idea fundamentally different from this:

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

Are you counting photons as propellant? Would you count gravitons as propellant? If not, why not?

Ok, firstly, you don't seem to understand the difference between special relativity and general relativity. e=mc^2 is Special Relativity and has nothing to do with what we are talking about (or rather, very little to do) directly. The Mach Effect is a precursor to and a required condition of General Relativity. Please google the difference.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 11/12/2010 07:36 am
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"?

Its an approximation only. The model is what is interesting, well to me anyway. Reactions? Thought I was indicating that there are models out there that shows propellantless field propulsion not only to be workable but within technological reach, or is simple explanations not egg headish enough?

My reaction is you still haven't responded to my comment on your blog, which correctly points out that using electromagnetic waves to cause atoms to move is the central method of the Hall Thruster, a form of ion or plasma drive. It most certainly is NOT propellantless or reactionless, and has absolutely nothing to do with Woodward's Mach Effect. You are a, to quote Jack Sarfatti, a scientific cargo cultist.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Crispy on 11/12/2010 09:58 am
*finger in the air*

Actually it was Feynman who coined the term Cargo Cult Science
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 11/18/2010 04:57 pm
Guys, theoretically, could we negatively energize a vehicle and apply  certain frequency in order to lift it up? I imagine the craft as a giant electron that gets feed by EM waves just like the photoelectric effect :) 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 11/19/2010 08:04 am
Guys, theoretically, could we negatively energize a vehicle and apply  certain frequency in order to lift it up? I imagine the craft as a giant electron that gets feed by EM waves just like the photoelectric effect :) 

Electrons have a very, very small mass compared to atoms. I can't see how this would work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/19/2010 02:19 pm
I gotta say:  I did like the "finger in the air" point.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 11/20/2010 08:55 pm
*finger in the air*

Actually it was Feynman who coined the term Cargo Cult Science

Yes, though Sarfatti tends to accuse anybody who is promoting reactionless propulsion of cargo cultism. In this case, the label is accurate.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/24/2010 12:52 pm
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...

So what you're really saying is that through some mechanism (that I don't understand at all) there is some acceleration/boost/increase in kinetic energy. And this energy is accounted for by E=mc^2, which you refer to as gravitational potential energy, but most people call rest-mass energy.

Aren't you describing the theoretical limit of rocket propulsion? How is your idea fundamentally different from this:

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

Are you counting photons as propellant? Would you count gravitons as propellant? If not, why not?

Celebrimbor:

I'll try to paint a picture of the M-E and rockets that you can relate to, but this stuff is not easy to navigate through so bear with me. 

BTW, until we have an experimentally verified quantum-gravity theory that merges QM and GRT into a harmonious whole, we have no clue whether "gravitons" or the quantification of gravity into particles exist or does not.  So the GRT community talks about spacetime distortion waves being the seat of all gravitational and inertial phenomenon's instead.  In fact, Woodward claims that Newtonian inertial reaction forces are the only TRUE force of gravity!  Local gravitational disturbances, like the gee-field of the Earth, are just minor local spacetime distortions…


Woodward’s transient Mach-Effect (M-E) conjecture is inextricably tied to his proposed origins of inertia theory based on Newton's three laws of motion, Mach’s Principle, Special and General Relativity Theories (SRT & GRT), Lorentz Invariance, with the latter requirement guarantying that the resulting conjecture observes all known conservation laws, along with Dennis Sciama’s 1953 and 1969 origins of inertia papers.   The strength of Woodward’s arguments relies on the strength of these underlying assumptions, which have yet to be disproven in or out of the labs.  Also note that since we are talking about using a hidden attribute of regular Newtonian inertial reaction forces instead of gravity effects to create the M-E, the magnitude of these predicted M-E transient inertial forces are in line with everyday inertial reaction forces that can be very large dependent on the magnitude of the applied acceleration, instead of the pico-picoscopic forces described by gravity effects or GRT predicted gravity waves due to the ~1x10^40 measured difference in gravity verses inertial derived effects.  One may legitimately then ask why does this huge difference in magnitude exist between spacetime distortions derived effects such as gravity and inertia?  It results from the fact that the gravitational forces are created by spacetime distortions created by local mass/energy concentrations only, whereas inertial forces are created by the interactions of all the causally connected mass/energy in the universe which is currently pegged as having a radius of 13.7 billion light years.
 
Now why did I provide all of the foregoing when talking about the difference between the M-E based thrusters and rockets?   First off the reader has to remember that the rocket and its propellant form a small  CLOSED-loop system.  It has NO pertinent interactions with the outside universe as far as its maximum delta-V generation capability is concerned.  This closed system restriction limits a rocket vehicle’s maximum obtainable delta-V to the total amount of onboard propellant and the amount of useable energy that is stored in the vehicle’s propellant or reactors be it chemical or nuclear derived.   This local onboard energy and propellant limitation IS the origins of the Tyranny of the rocket equation!   

An M-E based thruster on the other hand is a much larger closed-loop propulsion system that can react with ALL the mass/energy in the causally connected universe that participates in the creation of the local acceleration induced inertial forces.  (See Sciama’s and Woodward’s “Origins of Inertia” papers.)  So an M-E based thruster not only uses this cosmologically derived mass/energy reaction force for most of its equivalent reaction mass, (It also has to have a minimum recyclable amount of local mass that will allow it to react with the gravinertial (G/I) field, just like a submarine has to have a propeller to react with the ocean’s waters.)   However, it also can extract energy and momentum from this near infinite sea of G/I mass/energy field and convert it into the local kinetic energy of the locally accelerated M-E powered vehicle above and beyond what the vehicle’s local power supply can provide.  However it can do this only if a G/I pressure differential of the proper sign can be established across the M-E device’s dielectric “propeller”.   

Ok, so why did I evoke Einstein’s e=m*c^2 energy/mass equivalency in my previous comments?  Simply because of Einstein’s GRT based equivalence principle or EEP that states that there can be no measureable difference between gravitational and inertial mass when measured in the same local frame of reference.  The EEP therefore requires that acceleration measured inertial mass has to have the same value as gravitationally measured mass in the same frame of reference, which is defined by Einstein’s mass/energy equivalency equation of m= e/c^2.  This implies that the G/I field phi, which has a theoretical value equal to c^2, is created by the summation of ALL of the mass/energy created spacetime distortions in the causally connected universe.  Therefore given the cosmologically derived estimates of the mass/energy contained in the causally connected universe that is ~13.7 billion light years in radius, which is measured to be 9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3 in mass density terms, times the total volume of the cosmos, and converting that figure back to energy gives us an upper bound for the available energy that any M-E device can tap.   Another way to estimate the magnitude of this upper energy storage bound of the causally connected universe can be estimated by noting that there are ~1x10^80 atoms in this cosmos, plus the associated dark matter and dark energy that goes with it and then converting that figure into energy and adding them all up.  So the theoretical G/I field energy so extracted by an M-E device is therefore near infinite and not limited by its local energy resources stored in the vehicle even if it’s nuclear power derived.  It is only limited by the power handling and phase control capabilities of the M-E device‘s components and its overall efficiency at pumping G/I field energy from this cosmological energy resource to the local vehicle or power plant in question.  How much energy that can be extracted from the G/I field by any one M-E device will ultimately be determined by the maximum operational G/I pressure differential that can be established across any given M-E device.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: SiriusGrey on 11/24/2010 01:46 pm
Three comments:

First, technically, E=mc^2 (or E=m for us particle physicists, as c=1) is a formula that emerged and is central in special relativity. In general relativity this is taken as given in the computation of the energy-momentum tensor.

Secondly, theorists define fields with large numerical values all the time. This does not mean any physical effect arises from them. Calculating the amount of matter in the visible universe only detracts from any argument you make.

Lastly; although you have given many buzzwords; you have not actually made it clear why the mach effect would have any effects on a scale smaller than some lightyears. Try to explain in one paragraph.

Cheers,
Sirius
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/24/2010 02:26 pm
Three comments:

First, technically, E=mc^2 (or E=m for us particle physicists, as c=1) is a formula that emerged and is central in special relativity. In general relativity this is taken as given in the computation of the energy-momentum tensor.

Secondly, theorists define fields with large numerical values all the time. This does not mean any physical effect arises from them. Calculating the amount of matter in the visible universe only detracts from any argument you make.

Lastly; although you have given many buzzwords; you have not actually made it clear why the mach effect would have any effects on a scale smaller than some lightyears. Try to explain in one paragraph.

Cheers,
Sirius

SiriusGrey

"Lastly; although you have given many buzzwords; you have not actually made it clear why the mach effect would have any effects on a scale smaller than some lightyears. Try to explain in one paragraph."

I did but you didn't seem to notice.  It's called Newtonian inerital reaction forces and the predicted transient M-E forces that surrounds them.  As to the buzzwords, you might take the time to read the comments and the references already provided in this thread, but I'll make it easy for you and append one of the more important papers and a teaser as well.

Best.

Paul March
Friendswood, TX
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: SiriusGrey on 11/24/2010 11:10 pm
Quote
I did but you didn't seem to notice.  It's called Newtonian inerital reaction forces and the predicted transient M-E forces that surrounds them.  As to the buzzwords, you might take the time to read the comments and the references already provided in this thread, but I'll make it easy for you and append one of the more important papers and a teaser as well.

For reference: http://www.springerlink.com/content/t834127482nuv384/ (http://www.springerlink.com/content/t834127482nuv384/)

I read the paper. It is a good account how the linear approximation to general relativity is not invariant under the Lorentz Transform.

The equations of general relativity are nonlinear. However, you can approximate the equations in case you have low velocities and a spacetime that is almost flat (like everything except black holes). In first order, there are three terms: A scalar term that describes the "newton-like" gravity, a vector term describing frame dragging, and a tensor term describes gravity waves.

The main observation referred to in this paper is the "standard" prediction of general relativity - the light of a star is bent if it passes close to a massive object like the sun. You can also observe this deflection if you are far from the star. The paper points out that at that point (far from strong gravitational fields) special relativity demands that your observations are lorentz-invariant - you can choose any inertial frame to describe your physics.

Lorentz-invariance is intricately tied to electrodynamics. Thus, the first-order approximation of GR also follows the electrodynamic transformation laws; and you can define a gravito"static", gravito"magnetic" and gravity wave part of the approximations. (scalar, vector and tensor perturbations)

The central point of the author is that one must not only consider any obersvations made in our "stationary" reference frame, but also in any boosted frame.

Can you explain to me how a propulsion effect arises from this observation?

Cheers,
Sirius
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 11/25/2010 01:29 am
He's attached two documents.  The front page of the gravitomagnetics paper is the second document.  The first document (a full paper in PDF format) is more along the lines of what you're looking for.

I think you might be underestimating each other...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 11/25/2010 03:45 pm
this discussion, to me, is almost like trying to decypher hieroglyphs for the first time without the Rosetta stone. But keep it on guys. Its quite interesting. I can grasp a few concepts here and there.

btw, I am not impartial here. And I wont be scientific either, by saying I want StarDrive to convince Sirius of his arguments. Not because I believe the MachEffect to be true. But because I want it to be true. Haha, yes, not scientific at all. Sorry.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: SiriusGrey on 11/25/2010 11:09 pm
Sorry - i did not see the first PDF at all the first time i looked.

I now had a chance to go over the calculations.

As far as I understand; the central effect you use is the mass fluctuation calculated for a test mass.

Unfortunately; I think a fundamental error is introduced in equation A4 in the appendix A, page 24, where your central equation is derived:

You write "In this frame we can ignore the difference between coordinate and proper time, and gammas (since they are all equal to one)" 

However, even if the relativistic gamma factor equals one at that time and in that frame of reference, the time derivative of gamma in that frame is of course not zero! Gamma is a function only of the particle velocity. This is the missing piece in the equation.

This derivative of gamma is not a relativistic correction - this is the change in the kinetic energy of the particle!

At this point, a time derivative on the rest mass is introduced, compensating for the missing kinetic energy. Subsequently, this leads to equations which predict fluctuation in mass.

Cheers,
Sirius
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 11/26/2010 02:04 am
I calculate that there is a 75% chance this has already been pointed out to Star Drive along the 63 pages of discussion in this thread. :)

And a 60% chance he has already replied to this observation ;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/28/2010 03:12 pm
Sorry - i did not see the first PDF at all the first time i looked.

I now had a chance to go over the calculations.

As far as I understand; the central effect you use is the mass fluctuation calculated for a test mass.

Unfortunately; I think a fundamental error is introduced in equation A4 in the appendix A, page 24, where your central equation is derived:

You write "In this frame we can ignore the difference between coordinate and proper time, and gammas (since they are all equal to one)" 

However, even if the relativistic gamma factor equals one at that time and in that frame of reference, the time derivative of gamma in that frame is of course not zero! Gamma is a function only of the particle velocity. This is the missing piece in the equation.

This derivative of gamma is not a relativistic correction - this is the change in the kinetic energy of the particle!

At this point, a time derivative on the rest mass is introduced, compensating for the missing kinetic energy. Subsequently, this leads to equations which predict fluctuation in mass.

Cheers,
Sirius

Sirius:

Up front I have to tell you that my formal training is as an Electrical Engineer with minors in math and astrophysics, so I'm not the best person to take up your below objections with for you need to be talking to the man who derived it.  IMO, it takes a special and general relativity specialist who has had many years becoming familiar with most of the various arguments that have swarmed around this topic over the years and that gentleman is James F. Woodard from California State University - Fullerton (CSUF) Campus, now partially retired who can be found here;   [email protected], if you need further clarifications about Woodward's Mach-Effect conjecture.

In the meanwhile I forwarded your comments to Jim Woodward last night and here is his reply:

"Paul,

Your correspondent is looking for a flaw in the argument as most would: in this case, taking an approximation which might suppress something that leads to a cancelation of the effect that is suspected.  He's right, of course, that in general the derivative of gamma is not zero.  It is easy to calculate.  You get gamma cubed times the dot product of the three velocity and three acceleration divided by c^2.  If the three velocity is not equal to zero (that is, if you are in some frame other than that of instantaneous rest of the test particle in this case), then dgamma/dt will likely be non-zero.  But in the frame of instantaneous rest, the three velocity is zero -- and so too is dgamma/dt.

If you stop and think about this for a few moments, it should be plain that dm0/dt =/= 0 is a real physical effect.  You should not be able to transform it away by choice of particular coordinates.  Especially since the Lorentz transformations do not depend on acceleration.  There is no fundamental error in Equation (A4).

Best,

Jim"


I also have most of Jim's and his graduate student Tom Mahood's earlier related M-E papers as well if you need copies.  You also might be interested in Jim's CSUF home & R&D pages:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/Woodward.html
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/ 

PS: We also have two decades worth of supporting data to back up Woodward's M-E conjecture. 

Best.

Paul March
Friendswood, TX
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 11/29/2010 08:10 am
So what you're really saying is that through some mechanism (that I don't understand at all) there is some acceleration/boost/increase in kinetic energy. And this energy is accounted for by E=mc^2, which you refer to as gravitational potential energy, but most people call rest-mass energy.

Aren't you describing the theoretical limit of rocket propulsion? How is your idea fundamentally different from this:

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

Are you counting photons as propellant? Would you count gravitons as propellant? If not, why not?

Celebrimbor:

I'll try to paint a picture of the M-E and rockets that you can relate to, but this stuff is not easy to navigate through so bear with me. 
I'm not as dumb as I have been made out (physics PhD and numerical GRT enthusiast). I trust you to lead me through it in a transparent way I can understand...
Quote
BTW, until we have an experimentally verified quantum-gravity theory that merges QM and GRT into a harmonious whole, we have no clue whether "gravitons" or the quantification of gravity into particles exist or does not. 
Point taken.
Quote
So the GRT community talks about spacetime distortion waves being the seat of all gravitational and inertial phenomenon's instead. 
Well not just "waves" but more generally, warped spacetime. And GRT doesn't claim to explain "all" interial phenomena...
Quote
In fact, Woodward claims that Newtonian inertial reaction forces are the only TRUE force of gravity! Local gravitational disturbances, like the gee-field of the Earth, are just minor local spacetime distortions…
This isn't Woodward's claim, it's Einstein's GR theory. On Earth we live in a warped spacetime and, for the most part, we don't follow geodesics. So we feel a force. Nothing controversial so far...
Quote
Woodward’s transient Mach-Effect (M-E) conjecture is inextricably tied to his proposed origins of inertia theory based on Newton's three laws of motion, Mach’s Principle, Special and General Relativity Theories (SRT & GRT), Lorentz Invariance, with the latter requirement guarantying that the resulting conjecture observes all known conservation laws, along with Dennis Sciama’s 1953 and 1969 origins of inertia papers.   
OK thats a good shopping list, but by Newton's three laws, I assume you mean as genweralised by GR? But the way you include "both Special and General RTs" make me think you don't understand that you only needed to say General Relativity, since Special include as... a special case.
Quote
The strength of Woodward’s arguments relies on the strength of these underlying assumptions, which have yet to be disproven in or out of the labs. 
What underlying assumptions? Ok, no new assumptions so far...
Quote
Also note that since we are talking about using a hidden attribute of regular Newtonian inertial reaction forces instead of gravity effects to create the M-E, the magnitude of these predicted M-E transient inertial forces are in line with everyday inertial reaction forces that can be very large dependent on the magnitude of the applied acceleration, instead of the pico-picoscopic forces described by gravity effects or GRT predicted gravity waves due to the ~1x10^40 measured difference in gravity verses inertial derived effects.
Wow, thats a long sentence! You've lost me here. Are you claiming that M-E effects can be larger than GR effects? I don't see how, they sound the same so far.
Quote
One may legitimately then ask why does this huge difference in magnitude exist between spacetime distortions derived effects such as gravity and inertia? 
You read me like a book!
Quote
It results from the fact that the gravitational forces are created by spacetime distortions created by local mass/energy concentrations only, whereas inertial forces are created by the interactions of all the causally connected mass/energy in the universe which is currently pegged as having a radius of 13.7 billion light years.
The universe has a radius? Ok the causally-connected Universe. Is that really 13.7 bn ly? I thought the edge of the observable universe (OU), the particle horizon, was 46.6 bn ly away(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe) Hmmm, in GRT, spacetime, and hence, interial forces are effected by the entire OU. So what's different here is that spactime is determined local and interial forces are globally determined (so necessarily separate from spacetime). Is that right?
Quote
Now why did I provide all of the foregoing when talking about the difference between the M-E based thrusters and rockets?   First off the reader has to remember that the rocket and its propellant form a small  CLOSED-loop system. 
Small? Loop? Closed, yes, but not necessarily small... and never a loop...
Quote
It has NO pertinent interactions with the outside universe as far as its maximum delta-V generation capability is concerned.  This closed system restriction limits a rocket vehicle’s maximum obtainable delta-V to the total amount of onboard propellant and the amount of useable energy that is stored in the vehicle’s propellant or reactors be it chemical or nuclear derived.   This local onboard energy and propellant limitation IS the origins of the Tyranny of the rocket equation!
Preaching to the converted, and not just me but most here.
Quote
An M-E based thruster on the other hand is a much larger closed-loop propulsion system that can react with ALL the mass/energy in the causally connected universe that participates in the creation of the local acceleration induced inertial forces.  (See Sciama’s and Woodward’s “Origins of Inertia” papers.) 
React, with the observable universe. Hmmm. I'm not with you. This is a passive reaction I take it? No active reaction could involve the entrie OU without instantaneous action at a distance...

I'm sorry, at this point, I've run out of time and lost trust that you are genuinely trying to explain something to me.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Celebrimbor on 11/29/2010 08:12 am
Sirius:

Up front I have to tell you that my formal training is as an Electrical Engineer with minors in math and astrophysics, so I'm not the best person to take up your below objections with for you need to be talking to the man who derived it.


Oh I see.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/29/2010 02:40 pm
Sirius:

Up front I have to tell you that my formal training is as an Electrical Engineer with minors in math and astrophysics, so I'm not the best person to take up your below objections with for you need to be talking to the man who derived it.


Oh I see.


Celembrimbor:

We all have our limits, and alas, I did not acquire formal training in GRT when in college during the late 1960s.  My only qualification for this M-E work is a 38 year career in American aerospace working avionics, power and space propulsion projects, and spending the last 12+ years of my spare time trying to understand Woodward's work with an eye toward advanced propulsion applications.  I've also spent part of that time working the experimental verification side of the M-E as reported in my three STAIF-2004, 2006 and 2007 papers, while continuing my M-E experimental work in my home lab as time permits.  So I wasn't trying to muddy the waters with my long sentences, but I was just trying to translate my engineering viewpoints of the M-E into something you or others at this forum might connect with.  The problem I have on this forum though is that the various posters have such a wide range of backgrounds that it is very difficult for me to nail down the presentation style one should use for any given posting, and that assumes that I'm a good communicator, which I'm not.  And that is doubly so for conveying Woodward’s M-E work since it is rather outside the Physics mainstream, so there is not a widely shared background one can fall back on, so I end up using long sentences.

BTW, I've attached Sciama's 1953 & 1969 papers on the origins of inertia if you are not already familiar with them.  You might also find Woodward's CSUF web pages an illuminating resource on this M-E topic as well.

All the best.

Paul March
Friendswood, TX
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/29/2010 03:35 pm
Celebrimbor:  Hah!  I see you disagreed with Jim!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.msg383404#msg383404

I too have been lurking this thread for quite a while; clearly one would want to know about such a cutting edge technology as quickly as one could.  Sadly, from my perspective, the math is daunting, and although my spirit is willing to understand the M-E thruster design from first principles, the flesh has turned out to be weak.

Even so, from my personal perspective, and only because I am interested in the subject, I post from time to time here.  In light of the recent posts by the new member, SiriusGrey, I took a few moments to review the thread.  I speak as a half-baked, ahem, "philosopher of technology" myself.  (Hint: Search the thread.) PhT?  But enough of my levity.

Paul March "channels" for Mr. Woodward from time to time on this thread, but Woodward himself does not post here under his own name.  This does not seem to be effective communication to me, and I wish he would post here.  There's another aspect of Woodward's approach that makes me feel uncomfortable:

... Jim routinely turns down offers for financial support.  ...

Subsequent commentary after this statement offers what I would call an unsatisfactory explanation of Woodward's policy of not accepting financial support.  Even tho I have criticized NASA, DoD, and the Feds, for wasting taxpayer dollars, a shoestring budget, such as Woodward's must be characterized, in my opinion, on development, will demonstrate very little.  If the math involved is incontrovertible as far as it has been made public, there should be more official interest, one would think. 

Because this thread is so long, I submit a partial summary of some of the parts that I have participated in because of my own personal interest.  I have noticed that, in my opinion, the "style" of the presentation seems to be obscuring the presentation of the complete theory.

My first post here:

In building one of these things, how do you know that they have given you enough information to build a working model?  Naturally, they're trying to patent a device, so I'm missing something here.  Are you supposed to figure out the missing pieces to the equations or mechanism yourself?

Secondly, what is the power source of this drive?  A small nuclear plant?  Where's the energy coming from?  It's one thing to build a device which can levitate itself off the lab bench while attached to a thick cable, and another to build a guidable, non-attached unit.

And am I correct in understanding that the device has not yet actually levitated any material, such as a thin sheet of gold, or something?

The first response to my post was incredibly difficult for me to glean understanding.  It read, in part:

... I know that people get enough info to build these devices because I have built them myself.  I'm not an engineer or physicist so it would be worthless for me to try to do these experiments on my own. ...
None of the thrusters levitate.  We often joke about how the people with the purses will need to have a test item floated into their offices before they listen.  When running in the 40 kHz range Jim uses a 2kW  Carvin audio amp that has a flat response to 70 kHz.  He generally puts a couple hundred watts on a test item. 

I don't know what Mr. Woodward uses right now, but if 2kW could levitate a gold sheet or something, it would be pretty spectacular.  That no levitation has happened yet does not prove the theory wrong, but it does not support the theory either.  A few days after my asking about the 2kW power supply, Paul March answers thus:

... the local Carvin or other local power converters and energy sources only supply the catalytic power required to initialize and maintain the possibly much larger directed momentum flux from the G/I field that then back reacts onto the vehicle.  ...

He expects to get some kind of power from the universe, but I don't know how.

Thanks for your all's efforts to explain.  ...

About transistors.  They amplify a signal, true, but they depend on power coming from another circuit.  So, the "G/I field engines act like momentum amplifiers that use a very small control signal, (the local input power), to control the potentially much larger momentum flux from the cosmological G/I field."

I hesitate to ask this, but are you guys intending to create a "flux capacitor"  in order to capture the momentum from the G/I field?  Then all this "Carvin circuitry", for want of a better term, directs this captured and stored momentum for purposes of the demonstration satellite thrusters?

Fine, but now I have to ask the question that blazotron asked above:  How can you guys access and control the momentum flux and nobody else can?  I know, we're "free" to do so...

So:  What is it that you all are pushing against? And where is the energy source that the "Carvin circuitry" can amplify and convert into directed momentum?

I was confused in that exchange, because Cullen's paper was cited by Shawyer, not Woodward, but my question remains.  Further, I ask the question in layman's terms, in a different way:

... Am I correct that the device doesn't have enough thrust to escape Earth's gravity?  But it has some thrust.  Maybe not levitate a gold leaf, but push against a balance beam, then.  Something that the guy with money can see. ...

Now, as then, efficiency of this drive is very low:

What I hear you not saying is that the power supply is still an issue.  And with the reported thrust levels so low, the power supply seems to be adding more mass than the device can push against.  At least push against usefully.

Another poster, with greater apparent knowledge of the math involved, also commented:

By what mechanism is it reacting against the rest of the universe?  Why do other devices not react with the rest of the universe like this?  Why is this one special?  How can it instantaneously signal the rest of the universe to react?  Saying it is so doesn't make it so. 

Read his next post, which focuses on the "em-drive" to get an idea of his knowledge of relativity.  For a guy like me, who is very comfortable up to trig, and stumbles at calculus, his explanation was relatively easy for me to follow.  I wish he would comment some more on the M-E thruster, however.

Paul March submitted a list of ten other attempts at experimenting with M-E theory:

... 1.   Hector Brito’s ~1996 self contained battery operated MLT like device ...
...
10.  Jim Woodward’s latest 2008/2009 M-E rotary proof of principle tests that have clearly demonstrated above the noise 2-omega M-E like mass fluctuations signatures. ...

One of the problems that Woodward has been having is getting the test apparatus evacuated to a suitably low pressure:

... As to the Crookes Radiometer effect, that is somewhat problematic at 2x10^3 Torr and it is one reason I keep harping on going down to at least 1x10^-6 Torr or even 1x10^-7 Torr where the vacuum relay folks hang their hats.  However, Woodward did mitigate the Radiometer effect and others like it by potting all his latter vacuum test articles in steel Faraday shields that would have killed off any such thrust effects.  In other words what he is reporting is most likely something that is NOT due to mundane effects. 

A note about thruster efficiency at the time of the experiment:

The Mach-2MHz that produced a peak thrust of ~5.0 milli-Newton was absorbing approximately 7.0 Watts from the 3.8 MHz transmitter it was attached to at the time.  In other words its efficiency was ~0.714 mill-Newton/Watt or its Newton/Watt efficiency was 0.00071 Newton/Watt.

I asked of the principle of the M-E thruster in layman's terms, although at the time of my asking, I called it an MLT:

... The principle of MLT, if I understand correctly, is the direct conversion of energy to momentum, which bypasses the inefficiency of propelling hot gas or ions as in typical propulsion systems.  At the same time there is the payload savings of not having to carry all the propellant and rocket infrastructure, which just weighs down the craft, especially when empty. ...

Anyhow:  It is not the "style" of the presentation that is important.  What is important is whether or not the presentation is complete.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/29/2010 05:01 pm
JohnF:

"It is not the "style" of the presentation that is important.  What is important is whether or not the presentation is complete."

Ahh, but are you willing to take the time and skull sweat required to read and understand the complete set of the origins of inertia, Mach-Effect (M-E) theory and M-E related data reports required to understand the M-E explanations posted here?  I’m not the brightest bulb around here, so it's taken me years on a part time basis to plow through most of the background “Origins of Inertia” and GRT material needed to appreciate some, but still not all of the implications that Dr. Woodward has presented in his M-E conjecture.   And it turns out that several additional solid state physics and engineering disciplines are also required to do so, especially when trying to design and build M-E thruster devices.  Thus when I try to convey that much material in an e-mail post or even a string of e-mails, it is near impossible to do so even for those formally trained in physics, GRT and the origins of inertia in particular.   The commonly shared  background just isn’t there, yet.

 BTW, the true origins of inertia is the key player in all of this for if GRT and Mach's principle rules the causally connected universe to whatever radius we can all agree on, then Woodward’s Mach-Effect conjecture has to be true to some yet to be determined degree.  And if it does hold in the final analysis, Star-Trek like impulse drives, warp drives and stargates are also buildable in this Century.  That is the carrot that has kept this donkey engineer engaged in this pursuit for over a decade now.

PS: to Celembrimbor:

“React, with the observable universe. Hmmm. I'm not with you. This is a passive reaction I take it? No active reaction could involve the entrie OU without instantaneous action at a distance...”

Now you hit the nail on the head for Mach’s Principle and its implications on the origins of inertia and the M-E requires there to be an effective instantaneous momentum exchange between the locally accelerated mass and the bulk of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe.  This may seem to be a direct violation of Special Relativity Theory (SRT)’s speed of light c limit in a vacuum on the speed of energy and momentum (momenergy) transfers between objects.  However as one of your countrymen, (Dennis Sciama), pointed out in his 1953 origins of inertia paper, there appears to be an end run around this speed limit if we are willing to use it.  This apparent end run around the c speed limit has also been explored by Wheeler and Feynman in their 1947 papers on radiation reaction forces as well as John Cramer with his Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM).  In other words, if the phenomenon we call inertia has its origins in the causally connected universe’s total mass/energy, which creates the cosmos’ gravitational field phi which in turn is equal to c^2, and given that local inertial reaction forces are instantaneous in nature as measured everyday and required by Newton’s third law, then instantaneous momenergy transfers via whatever hyper-3D channel you care to name is required every time a local acceleration induced mass reaction force is generated in a mass. 

Some folks don’t like this Mach's Principle and GRT based origins of inertia solution and try to make local QM effects the cause of inertia, see Puthoff, et al.  However if GRT rules the macroscopic universe, as it still appears to do so, then we have to learn to live with this weirdness as well and the weirdness we deal with everyday when generating QM effects in the microscopic realms. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/29/2010 05:33 pm
Ahh, but are you willing to take the time and skull sweat required to read and understand the complete set of the origins of inertia...

Oh, I'm reading all right.  Bit of a slow learner, nor have I been doing it full time either.  The last few posters have piqued my interest again.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/29/2010 06:29 pm
Ahh, but are you willing to take the time and skull sweat required to read and understand the complete set of the origins of inertia...

Oh, I'm reading all right.  Bit of a slow learner, nor have I been doing it full time either.  The last few posters have piqued my interest again.

JohnF:

I feel your pain!  However, this topic is where the real gold in spaceflight advancement hangs its hat, so we all need to make the effort to understand and perfect this new approach to propulsion.  Otherwise we are stuck with the too expensive and dangerous rocket solutions that will never get us much past Mars or Jupiter in an affordable and sustainable way, let alone getting us to the stars...

Best.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: scienceguy on 11/29/2010 10:18 pm

{snip}

  In other words, if the phenomenon we call inertia has its origins in the causally connected universe’s total mass/energy, which creates the cosmos’ gravitational field phi which in turn is equal to c^2, and given that local inertial reaction forces are instantaneous in nature as measured everyday and required by Newton’s third law, then instantaneous momenergy transfers via whatever hyper-3D channel you care to name is required every time a local acceleration induced mass reaction force is generated in a mass. 


So you're saying that the "cosmic gravitational field" is created by the "universe's total mass/energy"? Has this cosmic gravitational field been measured? Wouldn't it fall off by r^2 from where it is generated, being insignificant in most places?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 11/30/2010 03:10 am

 Has this cosmic gravitational field been measured?

Yes.

*added*: +~1/c^2
Quote

Wouldn't it fall off by r^2 from where it is generated, being insignificant in most places?

Good question. The answer is no. Gravitational effects, and by Woodward's calculations inertial ones as well, are dependant not only on distance but on the masses involved. Since for every inertial reaction force you have to consider the mass and distance of all particles in the universe, the observed effect is going to be virtually the same everywhere it is observed, with extremely minor variations due to local (and here local is on the cosmic scale) variations. But since we're physically located solidly in the middle of a fairly average distribution of matter, where do you measure the center of the force from?

It's like trying to calculate the falloff in electrostatic forces from molecules in a soup. Where do you want to measure from? The difference is that gravito-inertial forces fall off much slower, and appear to always be in the same direction. That is, opposite the direction of applied acceleration, or F=-ma
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 11/30/2010 03:41 am
Quote from: StarDrive
Star-Trek like impulse drives, warp drives and stargates are also buildable in this Century

how exactly do your ME Propellantless Thruster becomes a stargate or warpdrive? Is it because it can create the enourmous energies needed for such distortions of space time?

anyway, dont most physicians say warp drives and stargates lead necessarily to time travel and thus it would be impossible?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/30/2010 04:17 am
Quote from: StarDrive
Star-Trek like impulse drives, warp drives and stargates are also buildable in this Century

how exactly do your ME Propellantless Thruster becomes a stargate or warpdrive? Is it because it can create the enourmous energies needed for such distortions of space time?

anyway, dont most physicians say warp drives and stargates lead necessarily to time travel and thus it would be impossible?

No, the GRT folks who count say it may be doable.  See Woodward's latest SECSIF-2011 paper that will be published by the AIP next February.  The abstract for same is appended below:

"Making Stargates: the Science of Absurdly Benign Wormholes

James F. Woodward

Department of Physics, California State University, Fullerton, CA  92834
657-278-3596,  [email protected]

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 10^22 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."

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 11/30/2010 04:50 am
thanks, but again, how do ME relates to that? Why would ME be able to gather a jupiter mass of exotic matter?  ???
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 11/30/2010 05:48 am
I'm fairly sure this is covered earlier in this thread at enough length that you should glean at least in general the justification for that expectation.

IIRC One of the investigators mentions at some point that a successful experiment could show noticeable negative mass variation. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 11/30/2010 06:58 am
Even if you get mass down to 0 or (-), you'll get plenty of resistance in air when travel in the atmosphere. YOu need an airspike in addition. Plasma or so...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 11/30/2010 07:22 am
No, you don't.  For atmospheric travel you'd want a simple application of thrust, rather than trying to create negative mass, and M-E thrusters (if they work, and work as well as March et al. hope) would be perfectly suited for that.  No need for conventional engines.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 11/30/2010 04:34 pm
JohnF:

 I’m not the brightest bulb around here, so it's taken me years on a part time basis to plow through most of the background “Origins of Inertia” and GRT material needed to appreciate some, but still not all of the implications that Dr. Woodward has presented in his M-E conjecture.   And it turns out that several additional solid state physics and engineering disciplines are also required to do so, especially when trying to design and build M-E thruster devices.


This is no lie. I've spent the past 10 months going through Woodward's papers again and again and again. This is very complex stuff to wrap your head around. I'm still not there yet.

Quote

 BTW, the true origins of inertia is the key player in all of this for if GRT and Mach's principle rules the causally connected universe to whatever radius we can all agree on, then Woodward’s Mach-Effect conjecture has to be true to some yet to be determined degree.  And if it does hold in the final analysis, Star-Trek like impulse drives, warp drives and stargates are also buildable in this Century.  That is the carrot that has kept this donkey engineer engaged in this pursuit for over a decade now.


No kidding. This is what drives my interest in this stuff.

Quote

Some folks don’t like this Mach's Principle and GRT based origins of inertia solution and try to make local QM effects the cause of inertia, see Puthoff, et al.  However if GRT rules the macroscopic universe, as it still appears to do so, then we have to learn to live with this weirdness as well and the weirdness we deal with everyday when generating QM effects in the microscopic realms. 


This is the reason why I think Mach's Principle may be real. This and Heim Theory. Both theories use GRT as the start point and work from there. Puthoff and others attempt to use QM as the start point. I think starting with QM is not workable as I consider GRT to be the fundamental basis of reality and QM is something that emerges from it in some manner that we do not yet understand (although retro-causality is a very plausible explanation).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/30/2010 06:15 pm
thanks, but again, how do ME relates to that? Why would ME be able to gather a jupiter mass of exotic matter?  ???


Perhaps one of Woodward's earlier papers called "Twists of Fate" might give you a starter course for Jim's latest SPESIF-2011 paper on the same but expanded topic.  It's attached.  However if you look to Woodward's M-E equation's "Wormhole Term", you will notice that it is always negative going and can become very, very large when the density rho of the active dielectric approaches zero kg/m^3.  This density function is driven by M-E's +/-impulse term. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/30/2010 09:22 pm
Celebrimbor:  Hah!  I see you disagreed with Jim!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.msg383404#msg383404

I too have been lurking this thread for quite a while; clearly one would want to know about such a cutting edge technology as quickly as one could.  Sadly, from my perspective, the math is daunting, and although my spirit is willing to understand the M-E thruster design from first principles, the flesh has turned out to be weak.

Even so, from my personal perspective, and only because I am interested in the subject, I post from time to time here.  In light of the recent posts by the new member, SiriusGrey, I took a few moments to review the thread.  I speak as a half-baked, ahem, "philosopher of technology" myself.  (Hint: Search the thread.) PhT?  But enough of my levity.

Paul March "channels" for Mr. Woodward from time to time on this thread, but Woodward himself does not post here under his own name.  This does not seem to be effective communication to me, and I wish he would post here.  There's another aspect of Woodward's approach that makes me feel uncomfortable:

Anyhow:  It is not the "style" of the presentation that is important.  What is important is whether or not the presentation is complete.

JohnF:

"Paul March "channels" for Mr. Woodward from time to time on this thread, but Woodward himself does not post here under his own name.  This does not seem to be effective communication to me, and I wish he would post here."

Dr. Woodward is a bit of a old fashion ludite who doesn't like to mess with forums or other trendy communications technologies of this digital age.  In other words, he would rather work in his retirement lab and publish his papers the old fashion way that was the norm up until ~15 years ago.  So it is up to some of his followers such as me to perform digital outreach to folks with common interests such as yourself and others on this forum.  Sorry that doesn't suit you, but that is the way that cookie crumbles...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 12/01/2010 06:35 pm
thanks, but again, how do ME relates to that? Why would ME be able to gather a jupiter mass of exotic matter?  ???

Ok the core of Woodward's work seems to revolve around an interesting theory of the structure of the electron. Essentially, the claim is that the mass of the electron really is rather large but NEGATIVE. The reason we don't see this negative mass is that Mach's Principle, that inertia is created by the rest of the observable universes gravitational attraction equally in all directions, acts upon the negative mass of the electron in such a way that what we "see" for its gravinertial mass is its known atomic mass (essentially 0.000055 Atomic Mass Units) that is really the balancing point between the universes gravity stress put on the electron and its negative raw mass.

So, assuming this is true, and using Mach-Lorentz devices to cause electrons to temporarily unveil some or all of their negative raw mass to the local spacetime, you get a variation in the gravinertial mass of the electron as perceived by local spacetime. Doing so while moving the electron back and forth in sync with the variations in mass allows you to extract momentum from the gravinertial field. Because you can theoretically expose the entirety of an electrons negative raw mass with a strong enough B field, you can build up the jupiter mass of exotic matter in this way. Electrons are the exotic matter, when treated properly. Because this negative mass is so localized in the stargate device, it bends spacetime to create a wormhole of an arbitrarily benign topology.

This is how I understand Woodward's stuff, the other guys can correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Dr_Fierro on 12/01/2010 07:06 pm

"Paul,

Your correspondent is looking for a flaw in the argument as most would: in this case, taking an approximation which might suppress something that leads to a cancelation of the effect that is suspected.  He's right, of course, that in general the derivative of gamma is not zero.  It is easy to calculate.  You get gamma cubed times the dot product of the three velocity and three acceleration divided by c^2.  If the three velocity is not equal to zero (that is, if you are in some frame other than that of instantaneous rest of the test particle in this case), then dgamma/dt will likely be non-zero.  But in the frame of instantaneous rest, the three velocity is zero -- and so too is dgamma/dt.

If you stop and think about this for a few moments, it should be plain that dm0/dt =/= 0 is a real physical effect.  You should not be able to transform it away by choice of particular coordinates.  Especially since the Lorentz transformations do not depend on acceleration.  There is no fundamental error in Equation (A4).

Best,

Jim"

Star-Drive:

Jim's reply to SiriusGrey's objection is indeed correct, since his derivation in "Flux Caps & Origin of Inertia -
Appendix A" proceeds in the particle's rest frame. However, it seems the derivation is fatally flawed in that the
external four-force F is taken as the time rate change of the particle four-momentum (without the constant rest
mass constraint), instead of the correct expression F = (rest mass)*(four-acceleration), which is valid irrespective
of the rest mass being constant or variable. Using the latter expression, there is nothing left for obtaining the
transient mass terms, unless I am missing further subtleties of Jim's work.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 12/01/2010 08:25 pm
No, you don't.  For atmospheric travel you'd want a simple application of thrust, rather than trying to create negative mass, and M-E thrusters (if they work, and work as well as March et al. hope) would be perfectly suited for that.  No need for conventional engines.
Let's assume that there is a zero or negative mass propulsion drive made by us several decades from now. Let's also assume that the craft travels in the atmosphere accidentally. What shield will be used against air resistance?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 12/01/2010 10:28 pm
I would suspect Aluminum+ the intelligence not to reenter at high relative speeds higher than Mach 3 or so
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 12/01/2010 11:52 pm

However, it seems the derivation is fatally flawed in that the
external four-force F is taken as the time rate change of the particle four-momentum (without the constant rest
mass constraint), instead of the correct expression F = (rest mass)*(four-acceleration), which is valid irrespective
of the rest mass being constant or variable.


It's great to see some physics red meat on this thread after a desert of Months perhaps longer.

Dr Fierro, can you explain more why F=m0•a(4) =/= F=dp/dt,
especially in the context of not assuming at the start mass fluctuations are impossible prima fascia?

(pls excuse the clunky iPhone notation)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/02/2010 12:43 am
..iPhone notation..

Kinda what we used in hi-school.  What the problem is?   Oh.  Style.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/02/2010 11:38 am

"Paul,

Your correspondent is looking for a flaw in the argument as most would: in this case, taking an approximation which might suppress something that leads to a cancelation of the effect that is suspected.  He's right, of course, that in general the derivative of gamma is not zero.  It is easy to calculate.  You get gamma cubed times the dot product of the three velocity and three acceleration divided by c^2.  If the three velocity is not equal to zero (that is, if you are in some frame other than that of instantaneous rest of the test particle in this case), then dgamma/dt will likely be non-zero.  But in the frame of instantaneous rest, the three velocity is zero -- and so too is dgamma/dt.

If you stop and think about this for a few moments, it should be plain that dm0/dt =/= 0 is a real physical effect.  You should not be able to transform it away by choice of particular coordinates.  Especially since the Lorentz transformations do not depend on acceleration.  There is no fundamental error in Equation (A4).

Best,

Jim"

Star-Drive:

Jim's reply to SiriusGrey's objection is indeed correct, since his derivation in "Flux Caps & Origin of Inertia - Appendix A" proceeds in the particle's rest frame. However, it seems the derivation is fatally flawed in that the external four-force F is taken as the time rate change of the particle four-momentum (without the constant rest mass constraint), instead of the correct expression F = (rest mass)*(four-acceleration), which is valid irrespective of the rest mass being constant or variable. Using the latter expression, there is nothing left for obtaining the transient mass terms, unless I am missing further subtleties of Jim's work.


Dr_Fierro:

Dr. Woodward's response is below and attached:

"Paul,

Well, if the assertion about the four force were correct, there wouldn't be any predicted effects.  But it is not correct.  It seems to me obvious that the restmass of an object can be changing, and that this must have dynamical consequences.  But perhaps I have lived with this too long.  If the correct expression for the four force is the derivative with respect to proper time of the four momentum -- as it is -- then transient fluctuations in the rest masses of things do have dynamical consequences.

In any event, to counter the latest assetion, I long ago included in presentations of the derivation the words of Wolfgang Rindler in the second edition of his text on special relativity.  I attach the PPT slide of his words.  I don't think Mach effects will be so easily dismissed as by the claim that the definition of the four force doesn't allow them.  :-)

Best,

Jim"


From StarDrive:

BTW, you also have to remember that Dr. Woodward, his graduate student Tom Mahood, and myself have all experimentally demonstrated the existence of the effects of these mass fluctuations to one degree or another.  They are real and engineerable.  It's about time we got on with the task of doing so.

Paul March
Friendswood, TX

Update:

"Rindler's point is that the restmasses of objects in collision transiently change.  And when that happens dm0/dt is not zero and the four force has a non-vanishing time-like part.  That's where Mach effects come from.

Best,

Jim"
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 12/02/2010 12:38 pm
I ask with no implied meaning: If the effects are proven real, why does Woodward (IIRC) refuse funding?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/02/2010 02:25 pm
I ask with no implied meaning: If the effects are proven real, why does Woodward (IIRC) refuse funding?


Cinder:

First off, what is satisfactory proof of principle data for me, may not be satisfactory proof of principle data for you, academics or investors.  We all have our own and sometimes very different tolerance levels for uncertainty.  Secondly, because Dr. Woodward is now in his late sixties fighting lung cancer, he doesn't want to deal with the complicating issues surrounding accepting investment funding.  There are always strings attached to such funding and Jim doesn't want to deal with those restrictions on how he performs his research or what he does with the time that is left to him on Earth.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 12/02/2010 08:01 pm
No, you don't.  For atmospheric travel you'd want a simple application of thrust, rather than trying to create negative mass, and M-E thrusters (if they work, and work as well as March et al. hope) would be perfectly suited for that.  No need for conventional engines.
Let's assume that there is a zero or negative mass propulsion drive made by us several decades from now. Let's also assume that the craft travels in the atmosphere accidentally. What shield will be used against air resistance?

wrong question. I rather ask what "shield" can Earth use against a relativistic spacecraft impact.

in fact, if we are going to have craft travelling at relativistic speeds, we better also develop faster than light craft at once, so we can have probes to detect relativistic objects and warn us IN TIME to coordinate defenses.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 12/02/2010 08:13 pm
ME thrusters would change the picture by so much, that such a question as above wouldn't be asked on the premise of today's state of things.  E.G.  With ME tech the world can probably afford satellites easily enough that such a threat as relativistic projectiles could have some network of sentries dedicated to detecting them and coordinating interception, even if just by commanding some structure to move itself into the relativistic projectile's path to mitigate damage down on Earth.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Dr_Fierro on 12/02/2010 11:41 pm
Dr Ferrer, can you explain more why F=m0•a(4) =/= F=dp/dt,
especially in the context of not assuming at the start mass fluctuations are impossible prima fascia?

cuddihy:

By using F=m0*dV/dt, where t stands for the proper time and V for the four-velocity, Eq. (A4)
of Woodward's paper becomes: F=-(m0*dV(0)/dt, f). Now, when dividing by m0, the new Eq. (A6)
is (F/m0)=-(dV(0)/dt, f/m0). Remember that in the rest frame dV(0)/dt=0; anyway, by taking the
four-divergence the new Eq. (A9) becomes: -(1/c)*d˛V(0)/dt˛-div(f/m0)=4*pi*G*rho0. Besides
some technicalities you can see that no time derivatives of the rest mass appears in the new
Eq. (A9), leaving no room for transient source terms as proposed by Woodward.
Regards.

In the meantime, Jim has confirmed these results, albeit not accepting F=m0*dV/dt as the correct
definition of the four-force.

P.S.: The thread's dynamics is a little bit too fast for my taste and my allowable spare time.
I will do my best to keep with your pace.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/03/2010 09:27 am
Dr Ferrer, can you explain more why F=m0•a(4) =/= F=dp/dt,
especially in the context of not assuming at the start mass fluctuations are impossible prima fascia?

cuddihy:

By using F=m0*dV/dt, where t stands for the proper time and V for the four-velocity, Eq. (A4) of Woodward's paper becomes: F=-(m0*dV(0)/dt, f). Now, when dividing by m0, the new Eq. (A6) is (F/m0)=-(dV(0)/dt, f/m0).  Remember that in the rest frame dV(0)/dt=0; anyway, by taking the four-divergence the new Eq. (A9) becomes: -(1/c)*d˛V(0)/dt˛-div(f/m0)=4*pi*G*rho0.  Besides some technicalities you can see that no time derivatives of the rest mass appears in the new Eq. (A9), leaving no room for transient source terms as proposed by Woodward.

Regards.

In the meantime, Jim has confirmed these results, albeit not accepting F=m0*dV/dt as the correct definition of the four-force.

P.S.: The thread's dynamics is a little bit too fast for my taste and my allowable spare time.  I will do my best to keep with your pace.


Provided below is Dr. Woodward's latest reponse to Dr. Fierro's above comments to cuddyhi.  There appears to be some sort of misunderstanding developing here surrounding the definition of dv/dt in an instantaneous rest frame having to be zero, or not.  Fierro indicates it has to be zero apparently by definition, but Rindler and Woodward say no it does not have to be zero.  Hmmm...


"Sorry, not only is his definition of the four force wrong, he claims that dv/dt in the instantaneous rest frame is zero.  That is simply wrong.  This person has decided that the derivation must be wrong, and is making stuff up to get that result.  That is not good physics.  And the definition of the four force is the derivative with respect to proper time of the four momentum."


BTW, here is Wolfgang Rindler's Bio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Rindler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Dr_Fierro on 12/03/2010 11:01 am
Provided below is Dr. Woodward's latest reponse to Dr. Fierro's above comments to cuddyhi.  There appears to be some sort of misunderstanding developing here surrounding the definition of dv/dt in an instantaneous rest frame having to be zero, or not.  Fierro indicates it has to be zero apparently by definition, but Rindler and Woodward say no it does not have to be zero.  Hmmm...


"Sorry, not only is his definition of the four force wrong, he claims that dv/dt in the instantaneous rest frame is zero.  That is simply wrong.  This person has decided that the derivation must be wrong, and is making stuff up to get that result.  That is not good physics.  And the definition of the four force is the derivative with respect to proper time of the four momentum."

To all:

I am sorry for not being clear enough about notation. V(0) stands for the timelike component of the four-velocity, i.e., V(0)=c/alpha, with alpha=sqrt(1-v˛/c˛) right?. dV(0)/dt is thus the timelike component of the four acceleration. As Dr. Woodward already demonstrated in some earlier post, in the particle's rest frame that component is exactly equal to zero.

When time allows, I will post my (and others') objections to Jim's preferred definition of the four-force.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 12/05/2010 03:58 am
ME thrusters would change the picture by so much, that such a question as above wouldn't be asked on the premise of today's state of things.  E.G.  With ME tech the world can probably afford satellites easily enough that such a threat as relativistic projectiles could have some network of sentries dedicated to detecting them and coordinating interception, even if just by commanding some structure to move itself into the relativistic projectile's path to mitigate damage down on Earth.

Sith's question isn't about shields against relativistic impactors, but shields for the ship against what he sees as air resistance being a problem. A replacement for a solid TPS.

The misunderstanding of course is the idea that you need to go particularly fast in atmosphere with ME thrusters. The fact is you don't, any more than a space elevator needs to go hypersonic. An ME thruster driven vehicle can ascend through the atmosphere at even subsonic velocities, maintain that speed through the atmosphere, out of LEO regions, and directly into escape trajectories (because, after all, even an escape velocity of 25,000 mph on earth or in LEO will deplete to near 0 at the top of the gravity well due to gravity losses, what matters is the total energy applied). It would be less efficient to do it this way, but it totally eliminates the need for hypersonic TPS materials, so overall your vehicle will be lighter.

If you are running, say, a 1.1 meter diameter superconducting polywell as your power generator with a minimalist shadow shield , out of depleted uranium and your hydrogen tank, you could power a rather minimal sized vessel, basically a pressurized cabin for the needs of the crew, the cargo compartment, the hydrogen coolant/fuel tank, the thrusters, and the fusion generator and radiator wings/fins/landing struts. This is the point at which you get to start entertaining science fictiony ship designs.

Stuff even Bussard didn't consider.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 12/05/2010 09:50 am
That's how I read Sith too, the first time I read it and before Aceshigh took a different perspective, and I agree.  I think it's more plausible that the early days of METs would look more like blimps without the blimps' massive volume, rather than everything suddenly being made hyper-sonic.

I mean.. If you've got METs, wouldn't that enable station keeping of sorts of a space elevator if you stuck METs along the ribbon?  Basically a vertical railroad.  Anyway, literally the whole picture of transportation changes.  Orbital/space access becomes just a subset.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 12/05/2010 11:25 am
mlorrey interpreted me right. As you all know air is a fluid with it's own viscosity. I was talking about drag at high velocity. How to avoid it, etc. Maybe we need more than just shape geometry. Maybe we need some advanced laser cutter that would work as an air spike.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/05/2010 03:15 pm
Provided below is Dr. Woodward's latest reponse to Dr. Fierro's above comments to cuddyhi.  There appears to be some sort of misunderstanding developing here surrounding the definition of dv/dt in an instantaneous rest frame having to be zero, or not.  Fierro indicates it has to be zero apparently by definition, but Rindler and Woodward say no it does not have to be zero.  Hmmm...


"Sorry, not only is his definition of the four force wrong, he claims that dv/dt in the instantaneous rest frame is zero.  That is simply wrong.  This person has decided that the derivation must be wrong, and is making stuff up to get that result.  That is not good physics.  And the definition of the four force is the derivative with respect to proper time of the four momentum."

To all:

I am sorry for not being clear enough about notation. V(0) stands for the timelike component of the four-velocity, i.e., V(0)=c/alpha, with alpha=sqrt(1-v˛/c˛) right?. dV(0)/dt is thus the timelike component of the four acceleration. As Dr. Woodward already demonstrated in some earlier post, in the particle's rest frame that component is exactly equal to zero.

When time allows, I will post my (and others') objections to Jim's preferred definition of the four-force.


Dr. Fierro:

While you and your associates are considering your response to Dr. Woodward’s preferred definition of the four-force, you might also review a book review that Dr. Woodward did for a Brian Greene book entitled “The Fabric of the Cosmos” that covers some of Dr. Woodward positions on 4D spacetime analysis.  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene

I’m also including an excerpt from Brian Greene’s book on how one is to calculate the radius of the causally connected universe for your reference.  In the meantime below is Dr. Woodward latest comments on this forum thread topic.


“Paul,

When one talks about frames of reference in mechanics generally, unless otherwise specified, it is assumed that an inertial frame of reference is being talked about -- especially when one specifies that the velocity of some object therein is taken to be zero (think Newton's first law).  Instantaneous rest frames are routinely used to deal with acceleration in special relativity for precisely the reasons I used them in the derivation.  Folks not too familiar with special relativity, I suppose, can easily become confused by this technical "trick".  But those with more than a nodding familiarity with SRT should know immediately what is being talked about.  In the now 20 years since Mach effects were first raised, and 15 years since I got the derivation sorted out correctly, only once has any physicist raised issues about this aspect of the derivation.  The one who did, a world class general relativist (hired by the ORBs to try to discredit me), when I pointed out that d(cm)/dt = cdm/dt =/= 0 in general, immediately dropped his objection.  In his case, it was an inadvertent oversight.  In the present cases, I hope that is true too.  For if it isn't, it means you are dealing with people who don't know what they are talking about.

Best,

Jim

P.S.  The relativist's critique, which he sent me before proceeding, had a very elegant derivation of an interesting point.  I encouraged him to publish it.  He did so a year or two later.  :-)  It really was quite elegant."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 12/05/2010 05:11 pm
mlorrey interpreted me right. As you all know air is a fluid with it's own viscosity. I was talking about drag at high velocity. How to avoid it, etc. Maybe we need more than just shape geometry. Maybe we need some advanced laser cutter that would work as an air spike.
I don't see why METs would force anything to fly faster.  If anything, they'd allow substantial savings thanks to all the low speed lift they enable due to not completely depending on aerodynamic lift.  High speeds not being a necessary consequence of ME propulsion, the aerodynamics involved are the same "ordinary" aerodynamic concerns already worked out up to date.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 12/06/2010 04:37 pm

"Sorry, not only is his definition of the four force wrong, he claims that dv/dt in the instantaneous rest frame is zero.  That is simply wrong.  This person has decided that the derivation must be wrong, and is making stuff up to get that result.  That is not good physics.  And the definition of the four force is the derivative with respect to proper time of the four momentum."


<snippy snip>

To all:

I am sorry for not being clear enough about notation. V(0) stands for the timelike component of the four-velocity, i.e., V(0)=c/alpha, with alpha=sqrt(1-v˛/c˛) right?. dV(0)/dt is thus the timelike component of the four acceleration. As Dr. Woodward already demonstrated in some earlier post, in the particle's rest frame that component is exactly equal to zero.


<snip>

“Paul,

When one talks about frames of reference in mechanics generally, unless otherwise specified, it is assumed that an inertial frame of reference is being talked about
[/quote]

Hmm...are we talking past each other? This seems like a simpler objection than that to me.

Dr. Fierro says: F=dP/dt is wrong, but that F= Mo*dV/dt is correct. This seemed an extraordinary statement to me because they ought to be identical statements, so I was looking for an explanation.

I was thinking if you start from Mo*V (the instantaneous definition of momentum) rather than than P (momentum), and then you differentiate WRT time to get F, you have started with the assumption that Mo does not change. Of course that eliminates any change in Mo. You've pulled it out of the integral! It seemed circular to me.

So I was hoping Dr. Fierro would explain why it is wrong to start from P rather than Mo*V, but perhaps I am not asking clearly because he appears to actually be starting, prima facie, from the assumption that V is the proper place to start rather than P.

Obviously I'm no physicist, so I was hoping if the choice of P or V could be explained, I would understand the objection better as well as get a better insight into Woodward's derivation...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 12/07/2010 10:19 am
mlorrey interpreted me right. As you all know air is a fluid with it's own viscosity. I was talking about drag at high velocity. How to avoid it, etc. Maybe we need more than just shape geometry. Maybe we need some advanced laser cutter that would work as an air spike.
I don't see why METs would force anything to fly faster.  If anything, they'd allow substantial savings thanks to all the low speed lift they enable due to not completely depending on aerodynamic lift.  High speeds not being a necessary consequence of ME propulsion, the aerodynamics involved are the same "ordinary" aerodynamic concerns already worked out up to date.

Quite right, as I detailed in my response to Sith. There is no need for hypersonic speeds in atmosphere for either launch or reentry once you have ME thrusters of sufficient performance to achieve T/W of >1. You could essentially turn a normal airliner into a lunar passenger ship, replacing the turbine engines with ME thrusters and sticking a nuke (fission or polywell fusion, either or) in the cargo bay.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 12/07/2010 03:07 pm
What about reentry speeds?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 12/07/2010 05:36 pm
If you can levitate yourself to orbit, you shouldn't have to deal with re-entry speeds any higher than current normal speeds.  At least not inherently due to ME propulsion.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aero on 12/07/2010 07:04 pm
If you can levitate yourself to orbit, you shouldn't have to deal with re-entry speeds any higher than current normal speeds.  At least not inherently due to ME propulsion.
Well, if you are coming back from somewhere, surly you have some velocity. I guess the trick would be to shed the velocity before you hit the atmosphere. Would that take more thrust than simply escaping, or would it only take the same level of thrust? I expect you might plan your return/re-entry so that it took only as much thrust as you had available commensurate with the velocity you could tolerate on reaching atmosphere.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 12/07/2010 07:54 pm
Yeah, but none of that's due to using Mach Effect propulsion, which is IIRC the premise Sith was arguing from/asking about.  It's kind of vaguely phrased so I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 12/07/2010 11:27 pm
Yeah, but none of that's due to using Mach Effect propulsion, which is IIRC the premise Sith was arguing from/asking about.  It's kind of vaguely phrased so I could be wrong.

Right, any ME drive capable of reaching such high speeds is also capable of decelerating from them, given sufficient power. Chemical rockets don't do this because chemical combustion is so inefficient that it puts severe mass penalties on such ships so as to make them infeasible. With ME thrusters, there is no propellant expulsion so there are no mass penalties. You can decelerate outside the atmosphere to subsonic or low supersonic speeds before reentry. This will also reduce G loads on reentry to something akin to riding an express elevator or being on approach to landing on an airliner.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 12/08/2010 12:01 am
I'm just a layman here, but the intuitive POV I had was this:
If you can levitate to orbit, what's specifically happening is you're more-than-countering the planet's gravitational pull.  If you can make it to orbit this way, then you ought to have (assuming indefinite energy supply for the MET eqpt) strong enough propulsion to keep you there.  Even more so considering that gravity diminishes with distance.

Even if you had only very marginally better T/W than 1, you'd basically have a buoyant mass.  One that'd only get "lighter" the higher its altitude.  Which is equivalent to permanent station keeping, correct?  If that's the case, (and still assuming ME power supply is no issue) you wouldn't even need to have orbital velocity to stay in orbit, and therefore no re-rentry speed would be imposed other than reduced buoyancy to "sink" back to ground.

Of course it's immediately more complicated if power supply for such a floating access to orbit is unfeasible, if you still must rely on aerodynamic lift.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/08/2010 02:10 am
Folks:

The size and complexity of the onboard electrical power supply required to drive an orbital M-E vehicle depends on the actual Newtons per Watt efficiency that the M-E thrusters in question can produce.  If we are talking about 1.0 milli-Newton per Watt or 1.0 Newton per Watt thrusters will tell us whether you need a 100 MWe nuclear reactor to drive the vehicle's thrusters, or just a good set of 100 kWe Li-poly batteries.  The M-E theory holds out the promise that the Li-poly battery solution will ultimately work, but the first several generations of M-E thrusters may need the light weight fusion reactor to drive it until we sort out the engineering optimizations required for the battery powered approach.  And that optimization task will most likely take a number of decades and a lot of development funding to get it right... 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Dr_Fierro on 12/09/2010 05:22 pm
Dr. Fierro says: F=dP/dt is wrong, but that F= Mo*dV/dt is correct. This seemed an extraordinary statement to me because they ought to be identical statements, so I was looking for an explanation.

I was thinking if you start from Mo*V (the instantaneous definition of momentum) rather than than P (momentum), and then you differentiate WRT time to get F, you have started with the assumption that Mo does not change. Of course that eliminates any change in Mo. You've pulled it out of the integral! It seemed circular to me.


So I was hoping Dr. Fierro would explain why it is wrong to start from P rather than Mo*V, but perhaps I am not asking clearly because he appears to actually be starting, prima facie, from the assumption that V is the proper place to start rather than P.

cuddihy:

By definition P=Mo*V. The central issue is about the four-force definition: dP/dt or Mo*dV/dt? The equality only holds when you assume that Mo does not change, in which case we are dealing with a CLOSED physical system.  If we allow Mo to change, the physical system becomes an OPEN one and the four-force will depend on the definition you use.

The problem with the first definition (based upon dP/dt) is that, as a mathematical fact, in the Newtonian limit (c --> infinity) it predicts for zero external force that the particle's acceleration is frame dependent when Mo is allowed to change, so that the Galilean invariance is lost.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 12/09/2010 05:37 pm
Dr. Fierro says: F=dP/dt is wrong, but that F= Mo*dV/dt is correct. This seemed an extraordinary statement to me because they ought to be identical statements, so I was looking for an explanation.

I was thinking if you start from Mo*V (the instantaneous definition of momentum) rather than than P (momentum), and then you differentiate WRT time to get F, you have started with the assumption that Mo does not change. Of course that eliminates any change in Mo. You've pulled it out of the integral! It seemed circular to me.


So I was hoping Dr. Fierro would explain why it is wrong to start from P rather than Mo*V, but perhaps I am not asking clearly because he appears to actually be starting, prima facie, from the assumption that V is the proper place to start rather than P.

cuddihy:

By definition P=Mo*V. The central issue is about the four-force definition: dP/dt or Mo*dV/dt? The equality only holds when you assume that Mo does not change, in which case we are dealing with a CLOSED physical system.  If we allow Mo to change, the physical system becomes an OPEN one and the four-force will depend on the definition you use.

The problem with the first definition (based upon dP/dt) is that, as a mathematical fact, in the Newtonian limit (c --> infinity) it predicts for zero external force that the particle's acceleration is frame dependent when Mo is allowed to change, so that the Galilean invariance is lost.


thanks for the reply!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/09/2010 08:10 pm
From Dr. Fierro:

"cuddihy:

"By definition P=Mo*V. The central issue is about the four-force definition: dP/dt or Mo*dV/dt? The equality only holds when you assume that Mo does not change, in which case we are dealing with a CLOSED physical system.  If we allow Mo to change, the physical system becomes an OPEN one and the four-force will depend on the definition you use.

The problem with the first definition (based upon dP/dt) is that, as a mathematical fact, in the Newtonian limit (c --> infinity) it predicts for zero external force that the particle's acceleration is frame dependent when Mo is allowed to change, so that the Galilean invariance is lost."


And here is Dr. Woodward's reponse in return:

"Paul:
 
In the limit c -> infinity it makes no sense to talk about four momentum.  In that limit space and time, and momentum and energy, are independent concepts.  To, suggest that Galilean invariance of Newtonian mechanics cannot accommodate systems with changing rest masses is, frankly, silly.
 
As for a particle accelerating with zero external force, and that the acceleration is frame dependent, nonsense.  In Newtonian mechanics particles don't accelerate in the absence of external forces, even if their rest masses are changing.  vdm/dt is not a force in the usual sense of forces.  It is a momentum flux that balances a real ma force in a closed system (so that the total momentum is conserved).  This sounds a lot like the sort of nonsense the Whealton was pushing a decade ago.  Sad to say, this stuff is not taught nearly well enough in typical mechanics classes.
 
P.S.  Rindler's definition of the four force as the derivative with respect to proper time of the four momentum is THE correct definition of the four force.  There is only one correct definition, and that is it.

Best,
 
Jim"
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 12/10/2010 10:15 am
Thanks, Paul and to Dr Woodward as well. Lots to ponder...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/10/2010 03:43 pm
Thanks, Paul and to Dr Woodward as well. Lots to ponder...

Cuddihy:

While you are pondering here is a couple of links to Wolfgang Rindler's book on Special Relativity, first edition that was first published in 1985.  His four-force definition is in Chapter-5.

http://catatankuliah.com/2010/08/14/wolfgang-rindler-introduction-to-special-relativity/

Rindler's  improved 2nd edition, published in 1991, can be found at Amazon.com but it will set you back ~$55.00.

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Special-Relativity-Wolfgang-Rindler/dp/0198539525/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291998555&sr=1-1

Woodward tells me that the 2nd edition has a much clearer discussion of the four-force than the first edition.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 12/10/2010 05:23 pm
Thanks, Paul and to Dr Woodward as well. Lots to ponder...

Cuddihy:

While you are pondering here is a couple of links to Wolfgang Rindler's book on Special Relativity, first edition that was first published in 1985.  His four-force definition is in Chapter-5.

http://catatankuliah.com/2010/08/14/wolfgang-rindler-introduction-to-special-relativity/

Rindler's  improved 2nd edition, published in 1991, can be found at Amazon.com but it will set you back ~$55.00.

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Special-Relativity-Wolfgang-Rindler/dp/0198539525/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291998555&sr=1-1

Woodward tells me that the 2nd edition has a much clearer discussion of the four-force than the first edition.

Thank you Paul

-tom
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MickQ on 12/22/2010 03:02 am
Guys.  I have not been following this thread too closely so I'm not up to speed with much but a few questions.

1.  Would/could ME lead to wheel less vehicles, as in the movie I ROBOT ?
2.  Would/could it be classed simply as Anti Gravity ?
3.  As my main interest is Mars, would ME be a solution to landing large/heavy objects ?

Cheers for the season to ALL.

Mick.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 12/22/2010 04:05 am
Guys.  I have not been following this thread too closely so I'm not up to speed with much but a few questions.

1.  Would/could ME lead to wheel less vehicles, as in the movie I ROBOT ?
2.  Would/could it be classed simply as Anti Gravity ?
3.  As my main interest is Mars, would ME be a solution to landing large/heavy objects ?

Cheers for the season to ALL.

Mick.

Mick, merry Christmas to you.
1. Yes, with sufficient thrust, power to weight, and light enough batteries. But then, we don't currently know if that's possible with the materials we have.
2. no. The Woodward effect does not significantly cancel or even shield gravity in an observable manner, only inertia.
3. Yes, again but depends on thrust to weight. Look, where this technology is now can be compared to where nuclear power was in the 30s: wholly theoretical
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 12/22/2010 05:50 am
Guys.  I have not been following this thread too closely so I'm not up to speed with much but a few questions.

1.  Would/could ME lead to wheel less vehicles, as in the movie I ROBOT ?
2.  Would/could it be classed simply as Anti Gravity ?
3.  As my main interest is Mars, would ME be a solution to landing large/heavy objects ?

Cheers for the season to ALL.

Mick.

2. no. The Woodward effect does not significantly cancel or even shield gravity in an observable manner, only inertia.


hmmm... your answer is correct, but its does gives the impression you are implying it can shield inertia on the whole vehicle... to be more clear to MickQ, the Woodward Effect only messes with inertia on the particles that it uses to propel the craft.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: D_Dom on 12/23/2010 05:51 pm
Guys.  I have not been following this thread too closely so I'm not up to speed with much but a few questions.

1.  Would/could ME lead to wheel less vehicles, as in the movie I ROBOT ?
2.  Would/could it be classed simply as Anti Gravity ?
3.  As my main interest is Mars, would ME be a solution to landing large/heavy objects ?

Cheers for the season to ALL.

Mick.

2. no. The Woodward effect does not significantly cancel or even shield gravity in an observable manner, only inertia.


hmmm... your answer is correct, but its does gives the impression you are implying it can shield inertia on the whole vehicle... to be more clear to MickQ, the Woodward Effect only messes with inertia on the particles that it uses to propel the craft.

Thanks for that clarification aceshigh. Let me check my understanding by discussion of another experiment Woodward has talked about, the air table demonstration of X/Y motion. If a demonstration were to be developed that carried internal batteries for power it would have a considerable mass.
 The ME thrusters would affect only the inertia of the particles used for propulsion. My question is assuming the particle inertia of the thrusters is small when compared to the inertia of the experiment including batteries, control circuits etc how much force can be generated using existing materials?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 12/24/2010 03:30 am
I assume that how much force it can generate is still open to debate, and even them are trying to discover precisely how much force they can get out of the device/effect.

I think it all depends of how much mass differential they can create between the "pushed" and the "pulled" particles... and how fast they can "push" them.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 12/25/2010 05:54 am
I assume that how much force it can generate is still open to debate, and even them are trying to discover precisely how much force they can get out of the device/effect.

I think it all depends of how much mass differential they can create between the "pushed" and the "pulled" particles... and how fast they can "push" them.

Well, sort of.

The problem is not "from the physics, how much force can you get out of it?," the physics says the amount of force output would be proportional to things like input frequency and power.

But so what? It's the wrong question to ask, it's kind of like asking, ok, based on what we know the nuclear binding energy to be, how much power can you get from a nuclear fission reactor? And the answer to that question is, "well, how big is the reactor? What's the distribution of the fissionable fuel? Which isotopes are they? What's those isotopes asorption & fission cross sections"...and on and on. You could ask 200 questions trying to lock down some input parameters for the answer to be non-variable.

And this is the same way. The physics says, given an oscillating bulk acceleration of so much and an oscillating change in energy of so much and such frequency, within so much mass, you should get a mass variation of such at   such frequency . Add in a "push heavy /pull light" external forcing mechanism, and you will get unbalanced force of such and such .

So the better question to ask is, in terms of these physics, what is the art of the possible given existing materials?

Look back through this thread, Paul March does quite a bit of explaining of what parameters would need to be to set a thrust-to-weight of greater than 1. Although something seems to have changed recently with regard to how to actually construct a Mach Effect thruster. I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with that myself...

Merry Christmas everyone.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 12/25/2010 11:42 pm
So the better question to ask is, in terms of these physics, what is the art of the possible given existing materials?

But the best question is always "Does this effect exist?"

I often get the impression that people on this thread do not realize what a hot topic this effect would be among physicists, even if it were a million times too small for any practical application, if it could just be demonstrated to actually exist.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 12/26/2010 03:25 am
I get the impression that "if it were a million times too small for any practical application" the validity of the demonstration would be endlessly debated by physicists. How do you prove that you've eliminated all sources of experimental error at that level, when it appears to violate conventional physics?

However, a practical and replicable demonstration would trigger the biggest shake-up in physics since relativity.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 12/26/2010 06:01 am
I get the impression that "if it were a million times too small for any practical application" the validity of the demonstration would be endlessly debated by physicists. How do you prove that you've eliminated all sources of experimental error at that level, when it appears to violate conventional physics?

However, a practical and replicable demonstration would trigger the biggest shake-up in physics since relativity.

It certainly would :)

But in general nothing in advanced physics has to reach anything like a practical scale before it can be considered 99.99999% proven.

A physicist trying to prove this concept probably wouldnt build anything that remotely resembled a reactionless thruster. They would design an experiment where this affected a paremeter that we can measure extremely accurately. And some things we can measure extremely accurately.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 12/26/2010 11:27 am
I assume that how much force it can generate is still open to debate, and even them are trying to discover precisely how much force they can get out of the device/effect.

The bigger (more important) question is "can it generate any force at all". This thread was started on NSF 2.5 years ago and the effect is still not demonstrated conclusively.

It appears there is a group of physicists who work on this and they seem to be convinced they see the effect in their experiment. The wider scientific community seem to be unimpressed. For some reason which eludes me, the physicists who work on this do not feel that they have to convincingly demonstrate the effect to physicists outside of their group. ???

With each passing year with no verified results, this whole story looks less and less credible overall. At least to me.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hop on 12/26/2010 07:32 pm
I get the impression that "if it were a million times too small for any practical application" the validity of the demonstration would be endlessly debated by physicists. How do you prove that you've eliminated all sources of experimental error at that level, when it appears to violate conventional physics?
By doing having a convincing theoretical basis, doing good, repeatable science, and verifying multiple independent predictions. Look at the level things like the CMB anisotropy, neutrino measurements and dark matter searches have gone to. The sensitivity required to do those measurements is so far beyond the level of the claimed effects here it's not even funny.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 12/27/2010 05:30 am
@Hop: but then, those things were never scientific taboo...

I already said once to Star Drive, that I assume the best way for them to get their results accepted is to forget propellantless propulsion, even if its the most obvious application (and maybe better way to prove) of their mass fluctuations theories.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 12/27/2010 05:50 am
More importantly - the EMDrive is coming on leaps and bounds. An experimental flight thruster has been built and this paper http://www.emdrive.com/Toulouse2010paper01.doc states that boeing is involved in building it's own thruster.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: markododa on 12/27/2010 06:20 am
More importantly - the EMDrive is coming on leaps and bounds. An experimental flight thruster has been built and this paper http://www.emdrive.com/Toulouse2010paper01.doc states that boeing is involved in building it's own thruster.

it works with interaction with earths magnetic field?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 12/27/2010 10:13 am
More importantly - the EMDrive is coming on leaps and bounds. An experimental flight thruster has been built and this paper http://www.emdrive.com/Toulouse2010paper01.doc states that boeing is involved in building it's own thruster.

it works with interaction with earths magnetic field?
If you read the equations, you'll notice that they beat the famous Newtonian law F=-F with specific cone geometry. That's the whole secret of the machine if it works at all.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 12/27/2010 11:48 am
EM Drive? As far as I know it has already been debunked several times... unlike ME (Mach Effect) effect based thrusters.

Unlike Mach Effect, EM Drive violates conservation of energy. Although as reactionless drives, both may seem similar to the uncareful, the ME has a whole theoretical basis on a very poorly but important field of physics (the origins of inertia) to explain the effect and why it doesnt violates conservation of energy.

EM Drive on the other hand, has nothing of that. The system proposed by Shawyer is simple and DOES violate conservation of energy and analysic of it shows Shawyer simply cant get the equations right.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 12/27/2010 03:46 pm
How do you prove that you've eliminated all sources of experimental error at that level, when it appears to violate conventional physics?

However, a practical and replicable demonstration would trigger the biggest shake-up in physics since relativity.

The effect described neither violates or overturns any conventional physics. What it would confirm is the origin of inertia as gravitational.

If it was sufficiently confirmed it would shake up physics all right, but not because of any new lines of theory but because it should have been found 30 years ago yet physicists have spent most of their energies on mathematical spurs like string theory to no practical effect for science or engineering.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 12/27/2010 07:50 pm
I assume that how much force it can generate is still open to debate, and even them are trying to discover precisely how much force they can get out of the device/effect.

I think it all depends of how much mass differential they can create between the "pushed" and the "pulled" particles... and how fast they can "push" them.

Quite right. And the amount of force you can generate is largely dependent on the materials technology used, particularly in the capacitor dielectrics which have exhibited some significant degradation of thrust as they heat up, and heating up is a major consequence of such high frequency mechanical motion of the piezos that sandwich the capacitors, as well as the stress upon the material itself by the mass fluctuations of the particles in the dielectric. So there may be some significant practical limits for some time to come in the power density these things can operate at.

However, that doesn't make them impractical. ANY ability to extract any newtons from this thing unidirectionally for nothing but energy put in puts this technology way ahead of any other space drive since it wouldn't need to depend on a fuel source for propellant. Even accelerating at a mere 0.001 G in space without expending any fuel has IMMENSE practical value that would totally revolutionize interplanetary space travel.

For instance, a space probe leaving Earth's gravity field with a net velocity of a few thousand kph, weighing 100kg with 1kw in solar power capacity (not counting additional power for other systems on board) with ME thrusters generating 0.001 Newtons / Watt means it is generating 1 Newton of net thrust. 100kg = 980 Newtons, so you have a thrust to weight ratio of .00102 which means you can accelerate at a rate of .102 m/sec^2 at full power.

if V(0) = 0.55m/sec
then v(t) = 0.55m/sec + 0.102 m/sec^2*31536000 sec (the amount of time in 1 year)

v(t) = 3216672.55 m/sec or 3217 km/sec

aka 11,580,021 km/hour or a little more than 1% of the speed of light.

Enough for unmanned interstellar probes.

Of course, if the probes course during this year is directly out of the solar system or otherwise away from the Sun, its power capacity will dwindle as it moves away from the sun, so the actual speed will be significantly less. However if the power supply is a nuclear power source of some kind, like RTG's or betavoltaics, this speed could be attained, and exceeded as long as the isotopes produced power.

(if any of my math is off please correct, I'm always paranoid about decimal places)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 12/27/2010 08:00 pm
EM Drive? As far as I know it has already been debunked several times... unlike ME (Mach Effect) effect based thrusters.

Unlike Mach Effect, EM Drive violates conservation of energy. Although as reactionless drives, both may seem similar to the uncareful, the ME has a whole theoretical basis on a very poorly but important field of physics (the origins of inertia) to explain the effect and why it doesnt violates conservation of energy.

EM Drive on the other hand, has nothing of that. The system proposed by Shawyer is simple and DOES violate conservation of energy and analysic of it shows Shawyer simply cant get the equations right.

EM Drive has not been discredited. It doesn't violate any conservation law, in fact, it relies on them to work.
EM Drive is solid physics. Real money is being spent on them and even Boeing is involved. The thrusters actually work. They have limits that are set by conservation laws. Suggest all read the paper/s to understand.
The paper uses the analogy of an 'electromagnetic flywheel' to aid understanding.
ME Mass effect thrusters have not been debunked either - it's just hard to get any usable thrust at this early stage of development.
Both are still on the table as propulsion methods. Em-drive is a clear winner so far though.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 12/27/2010 08:54 pm
EM Drive? As far as I know it has already been debunked several times... unlike ME (Mach Effect) effect based thrusters.

Unlike Mach Effect, EM Drive violates conservation of energy. Although as reactionless drives, both may seem similar to the uncareful, the ME has a whole theoretical basis on a very poorly but important field of physics (the origins of inertia) to explain the effect and why it doesnt violates conservation of energy.

EM Drive on the other hand, has nothing of that. The system proposed by Shawyer is simple and DOES violate conservation of energy and analysic of it shows Shawyer simply cant get the equations right.

EM Drive has not been discredited. It doesn't violate any conservation law, in fact, it relies on them to work.
EM Drive is solid physics. Real money is being spent on them and even Boeing is involved. The thrusters actually work. They have limits that are set by conservation laws. Suggest all read the paper/s to understand.
The paper uses the analogy of an 'electromagnetic flywheel' to aid understanding.
ME Mass effect thrusters have not been debunked either - it's just hard to get any usable thrust at this early stage of development.
Both are still on the table as propulsion methods. Em-drive is a clear winner so far though.

Got a URL to a BOEING web page that says they are involved? I've seen lots of startups claiming a lot of big corporate associations that are bogus.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 12/27/2010 08:54 pm
Sorry, that pretty much buries the EM drive.

With credible papers and demonstrable experiments, you would need a universal conspiracy of scientists to explain why it is not currently the hottest topic in the physics community today.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 12/27/2010 10:55 pm
EM Drive has not been discredited. It doesn't violate any conservation law, in fact, it relies on them to work.
EM Drive is solid physics.

enlight me. Unless EM Drive IS TAKING SOMETHING from outside (even if its some sort of "spooky action at a distance") then its violating conservation of momentum law.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/shawyerfraud.pdf

"...

Start with Shawyer’s Figure 2.4. He shows his truncated conical contraption, with a particle bounc-ing around inside it. It must have a constant energy, because it’s being reflected elastically at every wall. That means that the magnitude of its momentum, p, is constant.
As Shawyer correctly shows, the particle reflects off each wall in the way that you learnt at school (angle of incidence equals angle of reflection). But because the walls are inclined to the ‘axial’ di-rection (the axis going down the middle of the cone), this means that the angle that their momentum makes with the axial direction becomes ‘steeper’ at the narrow end of the cone, and ‘shallower’ at the bigger end of the cone. If you draw a few diagrams, and use some high school geometry, you can work out how much ‘steeper’ and ‘shallower’ the particle’s momentum angle gets, each time it bounces off a wall. Shawyer’s Figure 2.4 correctly shows this phenomenon.
Now look at the arrows below the diagram in Shawyer’s Figure 2.4. If you remember your high school physics, these are force vector arrows. They show the direction and strength of the force that the particle imparts on each wall as it hits it.
Shawyer’s F1 is the force on the ‘large’ end of the cone, and F2 is the force on the ‘small’ end of the cone. As he correctly shows, F1 is bigger than F2, because the particle’s momentum is much closer to ‘head on’ to the large end. (Remember, the size of the particle’s momentum does not change, only the direction it is heading in.)
After going through a few more trips into wave-land, Shawyer computes the difference between F1 and F2. That’s where his ‘drive’ comes from. All the complicated equations he throws in are just fluff around this basic result.
What’s wrong in Shawyer’s paper
Now we get to the point that a number of people have already made, but perhaps not confidently enough. Look at the arrows that Shawyer labels ‘Fs1’ and ‘Fs2’ on his Figure 2.4. These are sup-posed to be the forces that the particle imparts to the wall of the conical part of his contraption.
But hang on a minute! When a particle bounces elastically off a wall, doesn’t the wall feel a force that is perpendicular to the wall? Of course it does: if you remember your high school physics, you subtract the initial momentum vector from the final momentum vector, and the resultant force points into the wall. (OK, it’s actually called the ‘impulse’, not the force, but it’s effectively the same thing for what we’re talking about here).

Now look back at Shawyer’s Figure 2.4. He has Fs1 and Fs2 pointing perpendicular to the axial direction, not perpendicular to the cone’s walls.
His arrows are wrong.

This is the fundamental blunder that renders Shawyer’s paper meaningless. If you remember your high school physics, it is simple enough to draw a diagram to prove to yourself that, when a particle bounces off the wall of the cone, the increase in the particle’s momentum in the axial direction is exactly balanced by the impulse imparted to the cone in the opposite direction.
This is what has already been argued by those who have bothered to wade through Shawyer’s pa-per. It is not affected by all the ‘wave-land’ equations that Shawyer throws in. It is the fundamental error in his analysis.
So what do we really find out from this analysis, when we do it correctly? Simply this: when a par-ticle bounces around elastically inside a closed container, neither of them go anywhere. If you start in the right reference frame, then when the particle is moving left, the container is moving right; when the particle is moving up, the container is moving down; and so on. When the particle and the container collide, the directions of motion change, but their momenta still add up to zero. Nothing accelerates.
There is no ‘drive’."








Quote
Real money is being spent on them

to me, thats a big proof of fraud. When a company/person goes around asking for money to be poured in their experiments discredited by the physics community and that never stood peer-review. There are some other known examples...

ME guys at least are not in that for money, nor they want the publicity.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 12/27/2010 11:00 pm
as for ME Effect, can someone (maybe StarDrive) comment on this section of the Wikipedia article on Woodward Effect
The hypothesis is also related to the Nordtvedt effect proposed by Kenneth L. Nordtvedt from Montana State University, who observed that some theories of gravity suggest that massive bodies should fall at different rates depending upon their gravitational self-energy. This would violate the strong equivalence principle  that the laws of gravitation are independent of velocity and location, a principle considered fundamental by many theoretical physicists.[14] The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment has shown that if the Nordtvedt effect exists at all, it is extremely weak.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 12/27/2010 11:19 pm
ME Mass effect thrusters have not been debunked either - it's just hard to get any usable thrust at this early stage of development.

For zillionth time - at this point you do not need usable thrust! You need merely *detectable* thrust!

This will open up the field for many more people (and much more $$$) to look at the engineering problem of optimizing the technology and creating usable devices.

Until you have detectable thrust in an independently reproducible experiment, most people won't take you seriously.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 12/27/2010 11:35 pm
For zillionth time - at this point you do not need usable thrust! You need merely *detectable* thrust!

This will open up the field for many more people (and much more $$$) to look at the engineering problem of optimizing the technology and creating usable devices.

Until you have detectable thrust in an independently reproducible experiment, most people won't take you seriously.

unless you are asking for money like Robert Shawyer does (and getting it from companies and even from government), you dont need to be taken seriously. You only need to work until you can prove your claims and be taken seriously. NO scientific theory should be taken seriously until its proven. Thats not specific only to reactionless thrusters. It should be for string theory, dark matter, boson higgs, etc, etc.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 12/28/2010 02:53 am
For zillionth time - at this point you do not need usable thrust! You need merely *detectable* thrust!

This will open up the field for many more people (and much more $$$) to look at the engineering problem of optimizing the technology and creating usable devices.

Until you have detectable thrust in an independently reproducible experiment, most people won't take you seriously.

unless you are asking for money like Robert Shawyer does (and getting it from companies and even from government), you dont need to be taken seriously. You only need to work until you can prove your claims and be taken seriously.

Exactly what I'm saying. "You need to prove your claims". So far it is not done.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 12/28/2010 07:41 am
For instance, a space probe leaving Earth's gravity field with a net velocity of a few thousand kph, weighing 100kg with 1kw in solar power capacity (not counting additional power for other systems on board) with ME thrusters generating 0.001 Newtons / Watt means it is generating 1 Newton of net thrust. 100kg = 980 Newtons, so you have a thrust to weight ratio of .00102 which means you can accelerate at a rate of .102 m/sec^2 at full power.

if V(0) = 0.55m/sec
then v(t) = 0.55m/sec + 0.102 m/sec^2*31536000 sec (the amount of time in 1 year)

v(t) = 3216672.55 m/sec or 3217 km/sec

aka 11,580,021 km/hour or a little more than 1% of the speed of light.
(http://i.ajdesigner.com/cdn/cavelocity.png)
I guess you use this formula to calculate it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 12/28/2010 08:28 am
ME Mass effect thrusters have not been debunked either - it's just hard to get any usable thrust at this early stage of development.

For zillionth time - at this point you do not need usable thrust! You need merely *detectable* thrust!

This will open up the field for many more people (and much more $$$) to look at the engineering problem of optimizing the technology and creating usable devices.

Until you have detectable thrust in an independently reproducible experiment, most people won't take you seriously.

Relax. It's just wordplay. Usable, detectable - same thing really.
I have not been following ME effect discussions - i've only been following the EM Drive.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 12/28/2010 08:29 am
More importantly - the EMDrive is coming on leaps and bounds. An experimental flight thruster has been built and this paper http://www.emdrive.com/Toulouse2010paper01.doc states that boeing is involved in building it's own thruster.

it works with interaction with earths magnetic field?
No. Read the paper.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 12/28/2010 06:32 pm
Exactly what I'm saying. "You need to prove your claims". So far it is not done.

yes, but the fact they havent yet to prove their claims doesnt mean we should dismiss them automatically (just like we dont dismiss automatically string theory, dark matter, dark energy, etc, just because we cant prove those).

we should only dismiss stuff that we have the contrary proof: that they dont work, like Roger Shawyer´s EM Drive, where he couldnt even get his vectors right and because of that, on paper, he got a net force in one direction.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/28/2010 07:42 pm
as for ME Effect, can someone (maybe StarDrive) comment on this section of the Wikipedia article on Woodward Effect
The hypothesis is also related to the Nordtvedt effect proposed by Kenneth L. Nordtvedt from Montana State University, who observed that some theories of gravity suggest that massive bodies should fall at different rates depending upon their gravitational self-energy. This would violate the strong equivalence principle  that the laws of gravitation are independent of velocity and location, a principle considered fundamental by many theoretical physicists.[14] The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment has shown that if the Nordtvedt effect exists at all, it is extremely weak.

Aceshigh:

I'm not familiar with the Nordtvedt material you quote above, but I do know that Woodward's approach to Sciama's gravitational origins of inertia requires that the strong form of the GR equivalence principle be true for the M-E to exist.  That said, see the below to what I do know about what Nordtvedt had to say in support of Mach's principle.

See: http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/nord.htm

In partiuclar, read the the third paragraph down which I'll append below:

"Frame dragging is a clear Machian effect since rotation takes place with respect to the very distant matter in the universe.  In Newtonian gravity no frame dragging takes place because there are no gravitomagnetic effects.  And the almost universal opinion of even experts has been that gravitomagnetic effects are exceedingly small; so small that they have only very recently been detected.  In this connection, Nordtvedt quoted a National Academy of Sciences report of the mid-80s where it was claimed that, "At present there is no experimental evidence arguing for or against the existence of the gravitomagnetic effects predicted by general relativity. . . ."  One hears echoes of this view to this day.  Nordtvedt's point was that this is, simply put, wrong.  Gravitomagnetism is commonplace. A s he put it at the end of the introduction of his paper, "In summary, inertial frame 'dragging' -- both linear accelerative dragging and rotational 'Lence[sic.]-Thirring' dragging -- are ubiquitous in gravitational phenomena already observed and measured."  In section 5 of his paper, he ties these ideas up to Mach's ideas."

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/28/2010 07:54 pm
I assume that how much force it can generate is still open to debate, and even them are trying to discover precisely how much force they can get out of the device/effect.

I think it all depends of how much mass differential they can create between the "pushed" and the "pulled" particles... and how fast they can "push" them.

Well, sort of.

The problem is not "from the physics, how much force can you get out of it?," the physics says the amount of force output would be proportional to things like input frequency and power.

But so what? It's the wrong question to ask, it's kind of like asking, ok, based on what we know the nuclear binding energy to be, how much power can you get from a nuclear fission reactor? And the answer to that question is, "well, how big is the reactor? What's the distribution of the fissionable fuel? Which isotopes are they? What's those isotopes asorption & fission cross sections"...and on and on. You could ask 200 questions trying to lock down some input parameters for the answer to be non-variable.

And this is the same way. The physics says, given an oscillating bulk acceleration of so much and an oscillating change in energy of so much and such frequency, within so much mass, you should get a mass variation of such at   such frequency . Add in a "push heavy /pull light" external forcing mechanism, and you will get unbalanced force of such and such .

So the better question to ask is, in terms of these physics, what is the art of the possible given existing materials?

Look back through this thread, Paul March does quite a bit of explaining of what parameters would need to be to set a thrust-to-weight of greater than 1. Although something seems to have changed recently with regard to how to actually construct a Mach Effect thruster. I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with that myself...

Merry Christmas everyone.

Tom:

"Although something seems to have changed recently with regard to how to actually construct a Mach Effect thruster.  I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with that myself..."

The "something" is the realization of the ironclad need for a non-zero bulk acceleration vector relative to the distant stars in the same direction as the M-E capacitor's applied electric field that creates the dP/dt signal if one wants to reliably create a delta-mass signature.  In the past, this requirement was not always met in the as-built M-E test-articles.  In the next few months, I plan to verify this requirement. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 12/28/2010 08:05 pm
Exactly what I'm saying. "You need to prove your claims". So far it is not done.

yes, but the fact they havent yet to prove their claims doesnt mean we should dismiss them automatically (just like we dont dismiss automatically string theory, dark matter, dark energy, etc, just because we cant prove those).

we should only dismiss stuff that we have the contrary proof: that they dont work, like Roger Shawyer´s EM Drive, where he couldnt even get his vectors right and because of that, on paper, he got a net force in one direction.
Seriously - the EM Drive seems to be producing results. Boeing is involved. Technology transfer processes have occurred to bring the tech to the US. China has got into the act though that would be hard to verify. There is no contrary proof that has held up as yet, especially in the face of experiments to the contrary.Keep in mind - this is not a reactionless engine as is the basis of most people's rebuttals. The test article has produced motion - pretty hard to refute except by fraud.
I've studied the math and become convinced it is valid (maybe you are referring to an old paper that has been corrected? Or which bit of the paper is specifically wrong?).
I'm not 100% amazing people yet - but I do think there is something to it worth pursuing.It still needs proving beyond any doubt and I think an in-space test or a hover test will be required to turn peoples heads. I say stick one in a Dragon capsule and see what happens.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 12/28/2010 10:58 pm

Although something seems to have changed recently with regard to how to actually construct a Mach Effect thruster. I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with that myself...


The "something" is the realization of the ironclad need for a non-zero bulk acceleration vector relative to the distant stars in the same direction as the M-E capacitor's applied electric field that creates the dP/dt signal if one wants to reliably create a delta-mass signature.  In the past, this requirement was not always met in the as-built M-E test-articles.  In the next few months, I plan to verify this requirement. 


Was this an outcome of the "Mach Guitar" experiment?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 12/28/2010 11:37 pm
Relax. It's just wordplay. Usable, detectable - same thing really.

No, it is most certainly not the same thing.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex on 12/28/2010 11:41 pm
Exactly what I'm saying. "You need to prove your claims". So far it is not done.

yes, but the fact they havent yet to prove their claims doesnt mean we should dismiss them automatically (just like we dont dismiss automatically string theory, dark matter, dark energy, etc, just because we cant prove those).

Did I say that it should be dismissed?

Note that "string theory, dark matter, dark energy" theorists expend a lot of efforts to find experimental proof of their theories.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 12/29/2010 02:55 am
Relax. It's just wordplay. Usable, detectable - same thing really.

No, it is most certainly not the same thing.
A detection is usable for the purposes of proof. Wordplay.
Anyhow - i'm not really interested in the rest of the discussion you are involved with, only the emdrive subject, which is also part of this thread. I don't know enough about Mach drive,or whatever it is, to get involved in any discussion there.
Theory and experiment is required, counter theory and counter experiments are required. Reality will fall out of that.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 12/29/2010 03:58 am
Exactly what I'm saying. "You need to prove your claims". So far it is not done.

yes, but the fact they havent yet to prove their claims doesnt mean we should dismiss them automatically (just like we dont dismiss automatically string theory, dark matter, dark energy, etc, just because we cant prove those).

we should only dismiss stuff that we have the contrary proof: that they dont work, like Roger Shawyer´s EM Drive, where he couldnt even get his vectors right and because of that, on paper, he got a net force in one direction.

String theory is apparently being indirectly proved via extrapolations to cosmological effects.

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

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/29/2010 03:59 am

Although something seems to have changed recently with regard to how to actually construct a Mach Effect thruster. I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with that myself...


The "something" is the realization of the ironclad need for a non-zero bulk acceleration vector relative to the distant stars in the same direction as the M-E capacitor's applied electric field that creates the dP/dt signal if one wants to reliably create a delta-mass signature.  In the past, this requirement was not always met in the as-built M-E test-articles.  In the next few months, I plan to verify this requirement. 


Was this an outcome of the "Mach Guitar" experiment?

Tom:

No, it had nothing to do with John Cramer's M-E replication experiment.  It came about from talks within Woodward's M-E e-mail discussion group as we reviewed Woodward's pure delta-mass rotary data from the 2008 to 2009 time period, and while critiquing Woodward's SPESIF-2011 M-E Stargate paper where Woodward finally quantified the expected delta-mass signature for a given bulk acceleration input to the M-E dP/dt energy storing capacitor.
Title: M-E verification
Post by: deltaMass on 12/29/2010 08:36 pm
What's required to verify the M-E theory (and that's the only thing that matters right now) is a direct confirmation of mass fluctuations. Perhaps we could discuss how best to do this experimentally. Perhaps people will be inspired to build stuff as a result.
Title: Re: M-E verification
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/30/2010 03:22 am
What's required to verify the M-E theory (and that's the only thing that matters right now) is a direct confirmation of mass fluctuations. Perhaps we could discuss how best to do this experimentally. Perhaps people will be inspired to build stuff as a result.

DeltaMass:

Woodward has already demonstrated the existence of mass fluctuations in his 2008-to-2009 mass fluctuation rotary test series that demonstrated the need for concurrent dP/dt AND bulk acceleration signals required to create a well above the noise delta mass signature.  So some independent lab needs to replicate these results.  The Mark-III rotary tests in question are summarized by Woodward in the attached pdf file from the summer of 2009.  There is lots more data available, but it takes tens of MB to transmit.  Also note that the video files mentioned in this summary were only on the web for ~60 days due to the nature of the free video archiving service in question.  Woodward is notoriously cheap...
Title: Re: M-E verification
Post by: deltaMass on 12/30/2010 03:30 am
What's required to verify the M-E theory (and that's the only thing that matters right now) is a direct confirmation of mass fluctuations. Perhaps we could discuss how best to do this experimentally. Perhaps people will be inspired to build stuff as a result.

DeltaMass:

Woodward has already demonstrated the existence of mass fluctuations in his 2008-to-2009 mass fluctuation rotary test series that demonstrated the need for concurrent dP/dt AND bulk acceleration signals required to create a well above the noise delta mass signature.  So some independent lab needs to replicate these results.  The Mark-III rotary tests in question are summarized by Woodward in the attached pdf file from the summer of 2009.  There is lots more data available, but it takes tens of MB to transmit.  Also note that the video files mentioned in this summary were only on the web for ~60 days due to the nature of the free video archiving service in question.  Woodward is notoriously cheap...

How is one to separate the electrostriction signal from the purported M-E signal in this data? I see no analysis which demonstrates this.
Title: Re: M-E verification
Post by: LegendCJS on 12/30/2010 03:30 am
...in his 2008-to-2009 mass fluctuation rotary test series that demonstrated the need for concurrent dP/dt AND bulk acceleration signals required to create a well above the noise delta mass signature...

Did the test only demonstrate that "concurrent dP/dt AND bulk acceleration signals" are needed for "a well above the noise delta mass signature"?  A direct reading of your post means that no such signals were demonstrated, only the need for them.  If its just a grammar mistake on your part, forgive my nitpicking.
Title: Re: M-E verification
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/30/2010 03:48 am
...in his 2008-to-2009 mass fluctuation rotary test series that demonstrated the need for concurrent dP/dt AND bulk acceleration signals required to create a well above the noise delta mass signature...

Did the test only demonstrate that "concurrent dP/dt AND bulk acceleration signals" are needed for "a well above the noise delta mass signature"?  A direct reading of your post means that no such signals were demonstrated, only the need for them.  If its just a grammar mistake on your part, forgive my nitpicking.

LegendCJS:

Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you, but the attached Woodward report clearly shows IMO that the the existence of the M-E mass fluctuation signal was demonstrated when the Mark-III rotary test rig's bulk acceleration was greater than ~300 gees at the capacitor ring radius, while the cap array voltage at ~40 kHz was over 4.0 kV-peak.  Does that answer your question?
Title: Re: M-E verification
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/30/2010 11:28 am
What's required to verify the M-E theory (and that's the only thing that matters right now) is a direct confirmation of mass fluctuations. Perhaps we could discuss how best to do this experimentally. Perhaps people will be inspired to build stuff as a result.

DeltaMass:

Woodward has already demonstrated the existence of mass fluctuations in his 2008-to-2009 mass fluctuation rotary test series that demonstrated the need for concurrent dP/dt AND bulk acceleration signals required to create a well above the noise delta mass signature.  So some independent lab needs to replicate these results.  The Mark-III rotary tests in question are summarized by Woodward in the attached pdf file from the summer of 2009.  There is lots more data available, but it takes tens of MB to transmit.  Also note that the video files mentioned in this summary were only on the web for ~60 days due to the nature of the free video archiving service in question.  Woodward is notoriously cheap...

How is one to separate the electrostriction signal from the purported M-E signal in this data? I see no analysis which demonstrates this.


DeltaMass:

Find attached Woodward's latest 2010 analysis on the 2009 rotary data set.  I grabbed an earlier 2009 version last night that did not address the electrostriction issue very much.  The main thing one has to keep in mind though in regards to separating the M-E delta mass signal at 2-omega, (2X the drive frequency), and the electrostriction signal that is also expressed at 2-omega, is the fact that they are 180 degrees out of phase with each other, AND the fact they follow different scaling rules verses the applied radial bulk acceleration.  That is why Woodward archived the video clips of the dynamic oscilloscope traces of the cap-ring's 1- and 2-omega signals that showed these amplitude and phase shifts as the RPM and thus the bulk acceleration of the cap-ring were varied from 0-gess up to 811 gees at 60 revolutions per second (3,600 RPM).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 12/30/2010 12:43 pm
We may be descending to semantics here. Im sure what was intended by demonstrated was demonstrated to the satisfaction of the wider scientific community. If it were demonstrated, t would be an accepted fact.

What we should be discussing is what are the hurdles before this wider acceptance is achieved. Without accounting for this, strong claims actually weaken the case. The stronger the effect that is claimed, the more glaring that the effect is not already widely accepted.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/30/2010 04:13 pm
We may be descending to semantics here. Im sure what was intended by demonstrated was demonstrated to the satisfaction of the wider scientific community. If it were demonstrated, t would be an accepted fact.

What we should be discussing is what are the hurdles before this wider acceptance is achieved. Without accounting for this, strong claims actually weaken the case. The stronger the effect that is claimed, the more glaring that the effect is not already widely accepted.

Kelvin:

Who knew "demonstrated" was such a contentious word!  I used it not to imply that this data was accepted by the general physics community for it is not, but that it just showed the probable existence of the sought after M-E delta mass signature where very little quantified delta-mass data existed before.  However, you have to remember that this is NOT the first M-E related experiment, but just one of the latest in a ~20 year history of same that have shown hit or miss successes in trying to build a propellantless propulsion engine.  Sorry for the confusion.

In regard to how to clear the hurdles to wider acceptance, it's simple; enough independent researchers have to be convinced to take on the replication challenge and costs surrounding them.  That is why Woodward's group is trying to build an M-E demonstrator that is so over the top that the effect could not be anything else other than the offered M-E.  Again it’s the chicken and egg problem...
Title: Re: M-E verification
Post by: deltaMass on 12/30/2010 07:04 pm
Quote
How is one to separate the electrostriction signal from the purported M-E signal in this data? I see no analysis which demonstrates this.
Quote
DeltaMass:

Find attached Woodward's latest 2010 analysis on the 2009 rotary data set.  I grabbed an earlier 2009 version last night that did not address the electrostriction issue very much.  The main thing one has to keep in mind though in regards to separating the M-E delta mass signal at 2-omega, (2X the drive frequency), and the electrostriction signal that is also expressed at 2-omega, is the fact that they are 180 degrees out of phase with each other, AND the fact they follow different scaling rules verses the applied radial bulk acceleration.  That is why Woodward archived the video clips of the dynamic oscilloscope traces of the cap-ring's 1- and 2-omega signals that showed these amplitude and phase shifts as the RPM and thus the bulk acceleration of the cap-ring were varied from 0-gess up to 811 gees at 60 revolutions per second (3,600 RPM).

I'm sorry, but this new PDF appears to contain even less data that before. And nobody wanting a quick demonstration of results is going to wade through video files of scope traces.

The author himself says that this is not a final report but a work in progress. Clearly what's required is a graph showing the M-E device scaling with rotational frequency, and another showing scaling with applied voltage. A 3D graph would be best of all.

So as far as I can see, the fundamental case for mass fluctuations remains unproven. Piezoelectric and electrostrictive effects are able to account for all the data here, unless proven otherwise. That case has not yet been made.
Title: Re: M-E verification
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/31/2010 03:08 am
Quote
How is one to separate the electrostriction signal from the purported M-E signal in this data? I see no analysis which demonstrates this.
Quote

DeltaMass:

Find attached Woodward's latest 2010 analysis on the 2009 rotary data set.  I grabbed an earlier 2009 version last night that did not address the electrostriction issue very much.  The main thing one has to keep in mind though in regards to separating the M-E delta mass signal at 2-omega, (2X the drive frequency), and the electrostriction signal that is also expressed at 2-omega, is the fact that they are 180 degrees out of phase with each other, AND the fact they follow different scaling rules verses the applied radial bulk acceleration.  That is why Woodward archived the video clips of the dynamic oscilloscope traces of the cap-ring's 1- and 2-omega signals that showed these amplitude and phase shifts as the RPM and thus the bulk acceleration of the cap-ring were varied from 0-gess up to 811 gees at 60 revolutions per second (3,600 RPM).


I'm sorry, but this new PDF appears to contain even less data than before. And nobody wanting a quick demonstration of results is going to wade through video files of scope traces.

The author himself says that this is not a final report but a work in progress. Clearly what's required is a graph showing the M-E device scaling with rotational frequency, and another showing scaling with applied voltage. A 3D graph would be best of all.

So as far as I can see, the fundamental case for mass fluctuations remains unproven. Piezoelectric and electrostrictive effects are able to account for all the data here, unless proven otherwise. That case has not yet been made.


And what did I say in my previous post to KelvinZero? 

"I used it, (the word demonstrated), not to imply that this data was accepted by the general physics community for it is not, but that it just showed the probable existence of the sought after M-E delta mass signature where very little quantified delta-mass data existed before."

"Clearly what's required is a graph showing the M-E device scaling with rotational frequency, and another showing scaling with applied voltage. A 3D graph would be best of all."

Your request for cap voltage and RPM graphical data in a 3D format is doable, but will have to be translated from the many Excel spreadsheets that this data was accumulated in over several months time by Woodward.  And Woodward almost never makes graphical plots of his data anyway, for he claims that format is too open for misinterpretations.

"And nobody wanting a quick demonstration of results is going to wade through video files of scope traces."

If the M-E video data is still on the web, and you are really interested in this topic, you really ought to find the time to look at it and understand what this M-E rotary video data is trying to tell you.  If that's too much effort for you, that's your problem, not mine.
Title: Re: M-E verification
Post by: deltaMass on 12/31/2010 09:27 am
Quote

And what did I say in my previous post to KelvinZero? 

"I used it, (the word demonstrated), not to imply that this data was accepted by the general physics community for it is not, but that it just showed the probable existence of the sought after M-E delta mass signature where very little quantified delta-mass data existed before."

"Clearly what's required is a graph showing the M-E device scaling with rotational frequency, and another showing scaling with applied voltage. A 3D graph would be best of all."

Your request for cap voltage and RPM graphical data in a 3D format is doable, but will have to be translated from the many Excel spreadsheets that this data was accumulated in over several months time by Woodward.  And Woodward almost never makes graphical plots of his data anyway, for he claims that format is too open for misinterpretations.

"And nobody wanting a quick demonstration of results is going to wade through video files of scope traces."

If the M-E video data is still on the web, and you are really interested in this topic, you really ought to find the time to look at it and understand what this M-E rotary video data is trying to tell you.  If that's too much effort for you, that's your problem, not mine.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but rather attempting to describe my impressions. Everything hinges on the data, and I find it quite frankly puzzling that someone (Woodward in this case) would go to so much trouble to construct a non-trivial apparatus and then pretty much skip the entire step of data analysis and presentation, so as to rush to a conclusion that it's "very likely" that mass fluctuations exist. I find that odd. Could it be that he doesn't like his own data? Or that he himself doesn't understand it? I sure do not grok where that distorted sinewavey plot of amplitude vs. rotational frequency comes from.

There are three effects here: purported M-E, electrostriction, and piezoelectric effects. On top of all this is a huge amount of thermal drift, evidenced by the blue/red up/down plots. Teasing all these apart is certainly non-trivial - that much is fairly clear, else it would have been published as such already. It is the absence of such an analysis which leaves me with an empty feeling.
Title: Re: M-E verification
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/31/2010 05:42 pm
Quote

And what did I say in my previous post to KelvinZero? 

"I used it, (the word demonstrated), not to imply that this data was accepted by the general physics community for it is not, but that it just showed the probable existence of the sought after M-E delta mass signature where very little quantified delta-mass data existed before."

"Clearly what's required is a graph showing the M-E device scaling with rotational frequency, and another showing scaling with applied voltage. A 3D graph would be best of all."

Your request for cap voltage and RPM graphical data in a 3D format is doable, but will have to be translated from the many Excel spreadsheets that this data was accumulated in over several months time by Woodward.  And Woodward almost never makes graphical plots of his data anyway, for he claims that format is too open for misinterpretations.

"And nobody wanting a quick demonstration of results is going to wade through video files of scope traces."

If the M-E video data is still on the web, and you are really interested in this topic, you really ought to find the time to look at it and understand what this M-E rotary video data is trying to tell you.  If that's too much effort for you, that's your problem, not mine.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but rather attempting to describe my impressions. Everything hinges on the data, and I find it quite frankly puzzling that someone (Woodward in this case) would go to so much trouble to construct a non-trivial apparatus and then pretty much skip the entire step of data analysis and presentation, so as to rush to a conclusion that it's "very likely" that mass fluctuations exist. I find that odd. Could it be that he doesn't like his own data? Or that he himself doesn't understand it? I sure do not grok where that distorted sinewavey plot of amplitude vs. rotational frequency comes from.

There are three effects here: purported M-E, electrostriction, and piezoelectric effects. On top of all this is a huge amount of thermal drift, evidenced by the blue/red up/down plots. Teasing all these apart is certainly non-trivial - that much is fairly clear, else it would have been published as such already. It is the absence of such an analysis which leaves me with an empty feeling.

DeltaMass:

Sorry if I was a bit short with you yesterday.  I just got laid off from my NASA/JSC position after 26+ years on the job and have come down with a cold to boot, so I'm not feeling too charitable right now toward anyone. 

In regards to the M-E rotary data analysis there was a large amount of it accomplished on Woodward's R&D e-mail distribution that you are not privy to.  Remember that I said there is literally tens of MB of data scattered through eight months worth of e-mails and files.  And you are right; Woodward is much more comfortable building experiments and running those verses making reports on same that would pass muster in an engineering college.  It's up to some of us on his distribution like me to try to pull together these loose ends and feed them out to the masses as our time and energy permits.   

Now you asked me for a 3D plot of the cap voltage and rotary gee loading verses the cap-ring’s 2nd harmonic signal that is supposed to be representative of the summation of the piezoelectric, electrostrictive and M-E delta mass signature.  I've not felt up to creating that plot just yet, but I did find a 2D plot from Woodward's March 21, 2009 data set that does have three different operating voltages that I’ve spruced up for your review, along with some supporting slides.  Woodward has gone through an extensive analysis of all three effects you mentioned in the e-mails threads, but probably didn't do them justice in his report I appended.  Looks like I need to filter through the e-mails again and see if I can't distill them down for public use.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/31/2010 11:34 pm
DeltaMass:

Find below an excerpt from Woodward's 2010 M-E Rotary Data analysis on the issues surrounding the presence of piezoelectric, electrostrictive and M-E delta mass signals at the 2nd harmonic of the drive frequency.  This report is appended in an earlier post that I just updated with the Mark-III triple voltage vs bulk acceleration data plot.


"Two types of electromechanical signals can be expected in systems like that under consideration. The first is simple, linear piezoelectric expansion and contraction of the dielectric material in the capacitors in the direction of the electric field applied between the plates. Being linear, this effect has a frequency equal to that of the applied field. Since this is half the frequency of the Mach effect signals sought, it is easily separated from the sought signals and will not be considered further here. The second electromechanical signal to be expected arises from electrostriction. This effect is quadratic in the applied voltage, and as such will have the same frequency as the sought Mach effect. In fluids, electrostriction is displayed as a volumetric effect. In solids it is a little more complicated. It is usually a contraction in the direction of the applied field and a coupled expansion in the directions orthogonal to the applied field. It is worth remarking that whereas the piezoelectric effect has an inverse – that a mechanical deformation of the material will induce a voltage across the faces of the stressed dielectric – the electrostrictive effect, being quadratic in the voltage and not depending on the polarization of the material, does not.

The chief thing to keep in mind about electromechanical effects is that they produce either an expansion or contraction of the dielectric material in the capacitors. They do not produce a fluctuation in the mass of the
capacitors. Since the capacitors are clamped by the two accelerometers and “float” between them, expansions or contractions of the dielectric will affect the accelerometers equally. Accordingly, to the extent that the
accelerometers are matched in their responses, electromechanical effects in the capacitors will produce accelerometer signals that are the same. As a result, these signals will be removed by the differencing affected by the instrumentation amplifier. Moreover, as long as preload compression of the accelerometers and capacitors, and acceleration induced forces do not produce non-linear behavior, there is no reason to expect piezoelectric signals to depend on rotation of the device.

In the case of electrostriction, ferroelectric materials are known to sometimes display dependence on the extent of the compression of the material. While the chief compressional force on the capacitors is due to the preloading of the assembly with the lock-nut on the rotor arm bolt, rotation will induce a rotation frequency dependent loading force that will compress the capacitors further. The presence and sign of any compressional effect can be determined, however, with a simple static loading test carried out with clamps like those shown in Figure 5.

The result of a static loading test depends, for a particular array of capacitors, on how much preload is applied and how heavy the clamping force is. In the case of the capacitors shown in the figures here, with the usual preload, increasing the clamping force led to increases in the 0 Hz rotation, 80 KHz net accelerometer signal.  It is worth remarking, though, that the clamping force is larger than the force expected from the acceleration of the inner accelerometer and its backing washer.

Aside from electrostriction, the only electromechanical signal present at the double frequency of the voltage waveform driving signal is any second harmonic that might be present in that signal. This is easily detected by performing a power spectrum analysis of the applied voltage. And distortion in that signal can be suppressed by filtering the signal with a high power passive filter. But, in any event, like piezoelectric effects (at half the frequency), such signals should not produce pronounced effects after the differencing process (as they affect the accelerometers equally), and they should be insensitive to the rotation frequency of the device. Reality is more complicated in that the differencing process is not ideally exact. But the insensitivity to rotation for these signals can be checked by monitoring the amplitude of the residual signal at the base frequency of 40 KHz. It is rotation independent.

In practice, one should be prepared to detect any, and perhaps all of the signals discussed here. Unwanted signals can be suppressed by the techniques mentioned above, but their complete elimination may prove difficult, if not impossible.

Scaling:

The chief scalings worth mentioning are capacitor voltage frequency and capacitor voltage amplitude. We ignore capacitor voltage frequency as this has not yet been explored as the power circuit is tuned to a particular frequency that is not easily changed. As far as capacitor voltage amplitude scaling is concerned, the dependence is on the power (actually, the time-derivative of the power), and that is equal to the product of the voltage and current in the capacitors. Since the current is proportional to the voltage, the dependence turns out to be the square of the voltage.  Alas, this is the same scaling as that expected for electrostrictive effects. So, while checking for expected scaling should be done to make sure that any signal found passes this test, the test cannot be used to demonstrate the unique nature of any signals found. Nonetheless, though both effects scale with the square of the capacitor voltage, they are discriminable. It turns out that the time-derivative of the power and the square of the voltage, relative to the exciting voltage signal are anti-phase with respect to each other. So these effects compete with, rather than abet each other.  This means that if the dependences of these two signals on rotation frequency are different and their amplitudes are roughly comparable, then one may expect to see complex amplitude and phase behavior of the composite signal due to the two effects as the rotation frequency is changed. This type of behavior, in fact, is not difficult to produce."

Update: Added a slide for clarification of the data plots that now show the spin up and spin-down hysteresis effects, and a second slide that shows how the centripetal gee calculations were determined.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: deltaMass on 01/01/2011 05:56 pm
Thanks for the ton of data. Re. the y-axis on the graphs: is this an absolute amplitude? If the sign flipped, would we see it on this plot? Reason I ask is because it's said that electrostriction works in antiphase to M-E. It is this assertion that I'm hanging on to in order to come up with possible interpretations of this data. If M-E begins to dominate at higher rotational frequencies, and the antiphase conjecture is correct, and the y-axis is absolute, then a dip such as is observed in the data is to be expected. What confounds me, assuming all the above assumptions are met, is that the y-amplitude appears to then level off at yet higher rotational frequencies. Unfortunately there are only a couple of datapoints after the dip, and the error bars are rather huge. Ambiguity rules here. Obviously one expects the M-E to dominate in this regime and take the y-axis plot nonlinearly upwards. But it does not.

Forgive me for not seeing clear signs of M-E in this data. Perhaps you're seeing something I don't?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/02/2011 05:07 am
Thanks for the ton of data. Re. the y-axis on the graphs: is this an absolute amplitude? If the sign flipped, would we see it on this plot? Reason I ask is because it's said that electrostriction works in antiphase to M-E. It is this assertion that I'm hanging on to in order to come up with possible interpretations of this data. If M-E begins to dominate at higher rotational frequencies, and the antiphase conjecture is correct, and the y-axis is absolute, then a dip such as is observed in the data is to be expected. What confounds me, assuming all the above assumptions are met, is that the y-amplitude appears to then level off at yet higher rotational frequencies. Unfortunately there are only a couple of datapoints after the dip, and the error bars are rather huge. Ambiguity rules here. Obviously one expects the M-E to dominate in this regime and take the y-axis plot nonlinearly upwards. But it does not.

Forgive me for not seeing clear signs of M-E in this data. Perhaps you're seeing something I don't?


deltaMass:

"Re. the y-axis on the graphs: is this an absolute amplitude? If the sign flipped, would we see it on this plot?"

The Y-axis plot is in Volts dB (20 log x) referenced to 1.0 Volt.  I'm also the attaching the static loading test data pdf file for your reference.
Title: Re: M-E verification
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/06/2011 09:58 pm
What's required to verify the M-E theory (and that's the only thing that matters right now) is a direct confirmation of mass fluctuations. Perhaps we could discuss how best to do this experimentally. Perhaps people will be inspired to build stuff as a result.

DeltaMass:

Woodward has already demonstrated the existence of mass fluctuations in his 2008-to-2009 mass fluctuation rotary test series that demonstrated the need for concurrent dP/dt AND bulk acceleration signals required to create a well above the noise delta mass signature.  So some independent lab needs to replicate these results.  The Mark-III rotary tests in question are summarized by Woodward in the attached pdf file from the summer of 2009.  There is lots more data available, but it takes tens of MB to transmit.  Also note that the video files mentioned in this summary were only on the web for ~60 days due to the nature of the free video archiving service in question.  Woodward is notoriously cheap...

How is one to separate the electrostriction signal from the purported M-E signal in this data? I see no analysis which demonstrates this.


DeltaMass:

Find attached Woodward's latest 2010 analysis on the 2009 rotary data set.  I grabbed an earlier 2009 version last night that did not address the electrostriction issue very much.  The main thing one has to keep in mind though in regards to separating the M-E delta mass signal at 2-omega, (2X the drive frequency), and the electrostriction signal that is also expressed at 2-omega, is the fact that they are 180 degrees out of phase with each other, AND the fact they follow different scaling rules verses the applied radial bulk acceleration.  That is why Woodward archived the video clips of the dynamic oscilloscope traces of the cap-ring's 1- and 2-omega signals that showed these amplitude and phase shifts as the RPM and thus the bulk acceleration of the cap-ring were varied from 0-gess up to 811 gees at 60 revolutions per second (3,600 RPM).

Slightly off-topic and out of left field, but this makes me wonder whether (tiny) mass fluctuation traces might appear in hard disks, when writing to disk.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 01/07/2011 03:04 am
Probably not. According to the theory, the mass fluctuations only exhibit when you have both changing acceleration & quickening(time derivative of acceleration) and when you have changing energy in the same volume. It's a condition that virtually never reliably exists in nature, which is convenient as an explanation for why we've never seen evidence of it in nature.

Hard disks meet the acceleration criteria but not the changing energy one.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/08/2011 04:08 pm
Probably not. According to the theory, the mass fluctuations only exhibit when you have both changing acceleration & quickening(time derivative of acceleration) and when you have changing energy in the same volume. It's a condition that virtually never reliably exists in nature, which is convenient as an explanation for why we've never seen evidence of it in nature.

Hard disks meet the acceleration criteria but not the changing energy one.

The changing energy criteria I thought would be as the domains were flipped by the write head's magnetic field. Whether that qualifies as a net energy change in terms of G/I reaction I don't know.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 01/08/2011 06:14 pm
If the disk head is carrying write currents, the head will be almost static - ie holding itself over the track that is being written. The underlying disk is rotating pretty fast, but that's irrelevant.

Disk heads move pretty fast between writes, but then they will not be carrying write currents.

From first principals, I'd expect any read current during head movements to be much lower.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 01/09/2011 12:59 am
Probably not. According to the theory, the mass fluctuations only exhibit when you have both changing acceleration & quickening(time derivative of acceleration) and when you have changing energy in the same volume. It's a condition that virtually never reliably exists in nature, which is convenient as an explanation for why we've never seen evidence of it in nature.

Hard disks meet the acceleration criteria but not the changing energy one.

The changing energy criteria I thought would be as the domains were flipped by the write head's magnetic field. Whether that qualifies as a net energy change in terms of G/I reaction I don't know.

The actual work done in flipping the domain is clearly going to have a transient change in E. But it's a tiny amount of energy over a minuscule volume (if it wasn't laptops would never carry harddrives), it won't properly match the acceleration changes, and as a result it  won't be remotely noticeable.

I think you need a rapidly varying potential field across the mass that is meeting the acceleration criteria, Which pretty much means a capacitor. I was thinking a high-energy solid laser should also work, but there's actually no uniform field or even coherent beam inside the solid part, so that doesn't work either.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 01/15/2011 08:19 am
How important are the resonance effects in propellantless field propulsion?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/28/2011 12:58 pm
All:

When conversing with Jim Woodward and a friend of his last night, Dr. Woodward made the following observation worth noting about the Mach-Effect (M-E) and GRT in general.


"The real problem in understanding Mach effects, I suspect, can be traced to a fundamental definition that almost no one (other than those who have had to worry through stuff like this) really appreciates.  It is a distinction that, to my knowledge, is only addressed at any length in simple terms by Taylor and Wheeler in Spacetime Physics (pp 208-209).  It is the difference between invariants, conserved quantities, and "constants".  Almost everyone sloppily refers to the speed of light as a "constant".  But as all familiar with the details of GRT know, this is wrong.  The speed of light is actually a "locally measured invariant".

Why does this matter?  Because for inertial reaction forces to be independent of location and epoch, phi/c^2 must be a constant.  And since c is a "locally measured invariant", so too must phi be one.  Locally measured invariants, as measured by different observers, can vary from place to place and time to time, but locally measured they cannot.  This means that time-dependent terms in dynamical equations can have non-zero values, whereas were c a "constant" they might not.  This distinction is the one that leads to Mach effects from the timelike part of the four momentum when differentiated to get the four force and so on.

I might add that even experienced general relativists can get this wrong (as at least one did in my experience, though when pointed out, he immediately acceded to the correct version).

As to the problem of explaining this to non-relativists, what you are asking for, I think, is the analog of the quantum vacuum model as a sea of virtual particles fliting into and out of existence (which, by the way, as an exclusive model is wrong).  There is no equivalent, easily visualized model for Mach effects that I know of.  Lots of people have tried to come up with one.  In my judgement, none have succeeded.  I wish it were otherwise, as getting non-relativists interested would be much easier if such a model existed.  Sigh. . . ."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 01/28/2011 01:06 pm
Thanks for pointing this out, Paul. It does clear up a lot of questions.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 01/29/2011 05:31 pm
Paul, this may look idiotic, considering there are so many variables still unknown, but feel free to use wild guesses if you want.


Do you guys have some sort of roadmap for ME Effect?

I mean... supposing that it IS real (and you probably have seen enough to believe it), how much time would you expect until you can prove it beyond doubt to the scientific community... how much time until the first applications start being produced (like a small thruster for the ISS and other satellites), how much time should we expect before we can see ships REALLY moved by it?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 01/30/2011 05:22 am
Paul, this may look incorrect, considering there are so many variables still unknown, but feel free to use wild guesses if you want.

Do you guys have some sort of roadmap for ME Effect?

I mean... supposing that it IS real (and you probably have seen enough to believe it), how much time would you expect until you can prove it beyond doubt to the scientific community... how much time until the first applications start being produced (like a small thruster for the ISS and other satellites), how much time should we expect before we can see ships REALLY moved by it?

Aces-High:

Semi-educated wild guesses I can give you for the rollout of M-E tech once we are in development mode per the attached slide I did for the NASA/JSC AIAA technical Symposium back in May of 2009.  As to when we will have an independent verification on the existenance of the M-E's mass fluctuations, that's up to the R&D community taking seriously the work of Dr. Woodward.  So far we've had only one DOE hit job back in 2000 with no other takers since then.  So my goal is to make an M-E recycled propellant thruster over the next 6-months that can't be ignored any longer.  As to the first small commerical M-E thruster for satellite station keeping, I'd say it would be around 2 years after the demo thruster hits the news.   Pass that milestone, see the attached chart for what could come over the next century if the M-E is real and engineerable as we think it may be.  And yes, given a commerical M-E thruster by 2015, I would expect my WarpStar-1 M-E lunar vehicle to fly 5-to-7 years later*. 

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...

* NOTE: Only if a motivated outfit like Space-X is performing the design and build.  If NASA gets its hands on the WarpStar-1 project, it will take decades...

Best,

(Added Note)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 01/30/2011 03:04 pm
I won't be alive then :(
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 01/30/2011 03:24 pm
Your kids ought to. How'd that stack up as an inspiration, while growing up?  Actual space ships and settlements.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 01/30/2011 04:43 pm
I won't be alive then :(

how do you know??? Do you think humans will only make progress in propulsion tech??

there are scientists on medicine fields that predict the first human that will live to the age of 150 (unless you area christian fundamentalist and believe that Mathusalem, Adam and Eve, Abraham, etc, lived more than 500 years old) IS ALREADY 60 years old. (meaning, he will live until 2100)

I am 30 years old, if predictions come true, I might live until 2150 or later... as long as technology improves faster than I age (and that I dont die from an accident, or some natural catastrophe)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Space Invaders on 01/30/2011 04:49 pm
But how expensive will life extension be, and how many will be able to afford it?

But anyway, we're getting off topic...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 01/30/2011 05:06 pm
I can offer a tentative answer if you start a new topic on the subject.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 01/30/2011 05:22 pm
But how expensive will life extension be, and how many will be able to afford it?

How expensive will it be to travel to the stars by Mach-Lorentz technology? If its expensive, you plan ahead and make provisions for it. Why would it be any different with life extension?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 01/30/2011 06:41 pm
  So my goal is to make an M-E recycled propellant thruster over the next 6-months that can't be ignored any longer.

So given the "bulk acceleration" requirement that largely invalidates the "stationary MLT" model, what design direction are you going for?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 01/30/2011 07:11 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...

* NOTE: Only if a motivated outfit like Space-X is performing the design and build.  If NASA gets its hands on the WarpStar-1 project, it will take decades...

Best,

(Added Note)

Hi Paul,

I'm new here but I've been following these experiments for a while now. I have a question about your DTP:

What is  G-Field generator & a subspace radio as indicated in the DTP of your 2005 presentation?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 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.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hop 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Oberon_Command 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?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: hop 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 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...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee 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?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: gospacex 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 01/31/2011 08:39 pm
http://science.discovery.com/videos/sci-fi-science-exploring-the-universe.html

Interesting ;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive 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; [email protected]

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)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh 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/cmł is nothing compared to the 1 billion tons by cmł of a neutron star
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula 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/cmł is nothing compared to the 1 billion tons by cmł 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.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 02/01/2011 05:02 pm
Wouldn't you at least have to bring something to where you want the other end of the wormhole?  You couldn't just open a wormhole to anywhere you wanted, and even if you could it would be exceptionally difficult to keep it stably targeted.

Not to mention that even if the planet you opened a wormhole to had a technically breathable atmosphere and no hostile life forms or toxic dust or such (which I suppose you could potentially determine with a pinhole wormhole before opening a transit-grade hole onto somewhere like COROT-7b), conditions would probably be different enough that it would be impractical and likely dangerous to maintain a link through which matter could travel.

Remember that while planetary surface gravity doesn't vary wildly (Saturn's gravity at the equatorial cloud tops is 1.065 gees), atmospheric pressure does.

You could open the wormhole into a space station or ground station built for the purpose, but that would require you to travel there longhand to put up the structure.  Much as I suspect you would need to do to set up the stargate in the first place...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 02/01/2011 05:58 pm
I was thinking the same.  The practical difficulties of establishing a wormhole between planetary surfaces would have to be huge:

Accurate targeting
Constantly compensating for relative movement
Pressure differentials
Biological cross contamination

Not to mention safety. That's a lot of energy being manipulated. Not sure I want that on the surface of the planet I live on...

Most likely if a wormhole can be created and targeted, it would be from interplanetary space (perhaps an Earth Trojan point?) to somewhere in the vicinity of the destination star. Then ME spacecraft would ferry people from Earth through the wormhole and on to their destination.

I wouldn't put one anywhere near Earth, in case something bad happened. Like an asteroid from the destination system coming through at high relative velocity. Even though it would be unlikely to hit Earth, it could smash the wormhole generator, or waiting ship, and flood near-Earth space with debris.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 02/01/2011 06:47 pm
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.
Thank you, Paul, for doing this for us. I appreciate it. I'll read it as soon as you post it.

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...
Which means that for the last 17 years (since Miguel Alcubierre made his publish), we already have theoretical progress. Cool!

I hope that I will at least live up to see the first robotic G/I probe sent to Alpha Centauri! I can't dare to dream further.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 02/01/2011 10:11 pm
I was thinking the same.  The practical difficulties of establishing a wormhole between planetary surfaces would have to be huge:

Accurate targeting
Constantly compensating for relative movement
Pressure differentials
Biological cross contamination

Not to mention safety. That's a lot of energy being manipulated. Not sure I want that on the surface of the planet I live on...

You just need a good feedback control system. The cost savings from eliminating the use of any kind of spacecraft ought to pay for a really  good control system. The pressure differentials and biological cross contamination can be dealt with by putting the wormhole generator in a semiconductor-fab like clean room. This is no big deal.

As for energy manipulated, Woodward's paper suggests that it does not require that much energy to make the wormhole. It is the negative "wormhole" energy term that comes out of the Mach-Lorentz equation that generates the wormhole itself.

The economics of this are nice. This kind of wormhole is like a toll bridge or tunnel. The costs are the capital costs to build the generator and the running costs to operate it. The more people who walk through your wormhole, the more revenue you get.

Quote
Most likely if a wormhole can be created and targeted, it would be from interplanetary space (perhaps an Earth Trojan point?) to somewhere in the vicinity of the destination star. Then ME spacecraft would ferry people from Earth through the wormhole and on to their destination.

You can do this as well. Of course, you need spacecraft (like a commercial airliner version of March's Warpstar) to go through it.  Geostationary would be better than the Trojan point because the travel time from planet to planet would only be a few hours, like commercial air travel today. If its at the Trojan point, the travel time can be several days, which means you need state rooms for passengers just like a ship making it a lot more expensive.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikorangester on 02/02/2011 05:13 am
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"?

Its an approximation only. The model is what is interesting, well to me anyway. Reactions? Thought I was indicating that there are models out there that shows propellantless field propulsion not only to be workable but within technological reach, or is simple explanations not egg headish enough?

My reaction is you still haven't responded to my comment on your blog, which correctly points out that using electromagnetic waves to cause atoms to move is the central method of the Hall Thruster, a form of ion or plasma drive. It most certainly is NOT propellantless or reactionless, and has absolutely nothing to do with Woodward's Mach Effect. You are a, to quote Jack Sarfatti, a scientific cargo cultist.

The reason I have not replied is that the model is so simple that it is unnecessary to reply.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 02/03/2011 06:23 pm
The way to do it is with several wormholes. Have one wormhole that goes from some kind of terminal on Earth (say, in LA) that goes to the L-5 point. Since these two points do not vary in distance, it should be easy to keep the wormhole stable between these two point. The intersteller wormhole would have its opening some distance away since it will tend to move about. The other opening would be in a similar location around the target planet. Then you have the local wormhole to take you to the surface.

This arrangement is nice because the travel time would only be a few hours at most and the craft itself would be a commercial airliner equivalent of March's warpstar. Since the travel times are only a few hours, you don't need staterooms, restaurants, and the like and the travel cost per person would be quite low. A few hundred to a thousand dollars, kind of like flying to Asia or Europe.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 02/04/2011 03:18 am
You guys are all focusing on the control and hazard problems (badly underestimating the control problems, IMO), and blithely assuming that opening a stable wormhole to a specific distant point is possible at all.

The proposal I recall was to generate the wormhole over a very short distance under controlled conditions (both ends would need support equipment), and then cart one end of the wormhole over to wherever it needs to be.

I find myself wondering if this would actually work using a warp drive, or whether that would disrupt the wormhole too much.  It might prove necessary to transport the stargate at sublight speeds...

At the very least, I would expect that you'd need support equipment at both ends.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 02/07/2011 01:52 am
supposing that wormholes are indeed possible without time paradoxes and stuff... would we be able to DETECT a wormhole???

i mean... lets say we are a bit xenophobic and are suspicious of the possibility of aliens having easy access to our star system. Would we be able to detect such breaches in our defenses?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 02/07/2011 01:58 am
supposing that wormholes are indeed possible without time paradoxes and stuff... would we be able to DETECT a wormhole???

i mean... lets say we are a bit xenophobic and are suspicious of the possibility of aliens having easy access to our star system. Would we be able to detect such breaches in our defenses?

What defenses? 

We don't even know where all the Earth Orbit crossing objects in our solar system are, and have no way to stop any impactors we might detect.

Worrying about alien wormholes is a bit premature. If hostile aliens have that technology already we're stuffed.

And I for one would welcome our new alien overlords.  :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 02/07/2011 04:08 pm
just having some fun, and anyway, I was asking it theoretically... and with future technologies.

but... I guess detecting wormholes wouldnt use exactly the same methods as detecting asteroids, would it?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/07/2011 04:18 pm
supposing that wormholes are indeed possible without time paradoxes and stuff... would we be able to DETECT a wormhole???

i mean... lets say we are a bit xenophobic and are suspicious of the possibility of aliens having easy access to our star system. Would we be able to detect such breaches in our defenses?

What defenses? 

We don't even know where all the Earth Orbit crossing objects in our solar system are, and have no way to stop any impactors we might detect.

Worrying about alien wormholes is a bit premature. If hostile aliens have that technology already we're stuffed.

And I for one would welcome our new alien overlords.  :)

Interesting concept...

The industrial level required to send even a small probe from Alpha Centauri on a 75 year sublight trip is approximately equivalent to the year 2500 A.D. If it was actually a war of conquest with military-level like devotion of the industrial complex, maybe then we could hope to fight back because their equivalent tech and industrial development level would be lower.

So if we shoot at the alien equivalents of NASA, we'd be stuffed because then the alien equivalent of the USAF rolls in.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 02/07/2011 04:34 pm
If any of these technologies (Mach Lorentz thrusters, wormholes, etc.) are possible, it makes it even more likely that we are alone in the galaxy, at least. These technologies make it easier to spread through out the galaxy. If there are aliens, they most certainly should have done this by now and the galaxy should look like central Tokyo. It does not.

Also, the initial Kepler data shows the expected number of planets in the HZ, but that those planets are more like Neptune than Earth. This would certainly put a crimp on the evolution of ET's.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 02/07/2011 05:14 pm
If any of these technologies (Mach Lorentz thrusters, wormholes, etc.) are possible, it makes it even more likely that we are alone in the galaxy, at least. These technologies make it easier to spread through out the galaxy. If there are aliens, they most certainly should have done this by now and the galaxy should look like central Tokyo. It does not.

Also, the initial Kepler data shows the expected number of planets in the HZ, but that those planets are more like Neptune than Earth. This would certainly put a crimp on the evolution of ET's.

Huh?

Just because there may be aliens doesn't mean they want to talk to us.

Our galaxy could be the stellar equivalent of Tokyo and we're in the position of tribal Tongans who don't have a clue about it.

Also, Kepler shows a number of planets that are Neptune sized because those are easier to see by several orders of magnitude, not because there are necessarily more than expected. Based on our solar system, you would expect the numbers to be "about equal," but I would expect gas giants to dominate slightly due to the gravitational effects on smaller planets.

to quote the wikipedia entry,
Quote

Since Kepler must see at least three transits to be sure the dimming was caused by a planet, and since larger planets give a signal that is easier to check, scientists expect the first reported results will be larger Jupiter sized planets in tight orbits. The first of these were reported after only a few months of operation. Smaller planets, and planets further from their sun will take longer, and discovering planets comparable to Earth is expected to take three years or longer.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/08/2011 10:37 pm
I was thinking the same.  The practical difficulties of establishing a wormhole between planetary surfaces would have to be huge:

Accurate targeting
Constantly compensating for relative movement
Pressure differentials
Biological cross contamination

Not to mention safety. That's a lot of energy being manipulated. Not sure I want that on the surface of the planet I live on...

Most likely if a wormhole can be created and targeted, it would be from interplanetary space (perhaps an Earth Trojan point?) to somewhere in the vicinity of the destination star. Then ME spacecraft would ferry people from Earth through the wormhole and on to their destination.

I wouldn't put one anywhere near Earth, in case something bad happened. Like an asteroid from the destination system coming through at high relative velocity. Even though it would be unlikely to hit Earth, it could smash the wormhole generator, or waiting ship, and flood near-Earth space with debris.

Well I've actually proposed the first gated wormholes to be established between Titan and Mars, as a conduit to vent Titanian atmosphere into the Martian atmosphere, densifying it rather quickly (to Earth-normal levels within a few years) for rapid terraforming of the Martian surface.

This sort of project would help work out all the kinks of operating stargates at much longer distances.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aero on 02/09/2011 12:04 am
I was thinking the same.  The practical difficulties of establishing a wormhole between planetary surfaces would have to be huge:

Accurate targeting
Constantly compensating for relative movement
Pressure differentials
Biological cross contamination

Not to mention safety. That's a lot of energy being manipulated. Not sure I want that on the surface of the planet I live on...

Most likely if a wormhole can be created and targeted, it would be from interplanetary space (perhaps an Earth Trojan point?) to somewhere in the vicinity of the destination star. Then ME spacecraft would ferry people from Earth through the wormhole and on to their destination.

I wouldn't put one anywhere near Earth, in case something bad happened. Like an asteroid from the destination system coming through at high relative velocity. Even though it would be unlikely to hit Earth, it could smash the wormhole generator, or waiting ship, and flood near-Earth space with debris.

Well I've actually proposed the first gated wormholes to be established between Titan and Mars, as a conduit to vent Titanian atmosphere into the Martian atmosphere, densifying it rather quickly (to Earth-normal levels within a few years) for rapid terraforming of the Martian surface.

This sort of project would help work out all the kinks of operating stargates at much longer distances.
Did you consider atmosphere transfer from Venus to Mars, or perhaps to Mars from a combination of sources? Water from some ice moons, for example. Would the water pressure be high enough? Just thinking about the make-up of the resulting Martian atmosphere.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/09/2011 07:23 pm


Well I've actually proposed the first gated wormholes to be established between Titan and Mars, as a conduit to vent Titanian atmosphere into the Martian atmosphere, densifying it rather quickly (to Earth-normal levels within a few years) for rapid terraforming of the Martian surface.

This sort of project would help work out all the kinks of operating stargates at much longer distances.

The biggest problem with terraforming Mars is its very weak magnetic field. Humans wouldn't be able to survive there for long with the bombardment of cosmic rays. I don't really know any way around that problem besides habitation modules.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 02/09/2011 07:27 pm


Well I've actually proposed the first gated wormholes to be established between Titan and Mars, as a conduit to vent Titanian atmosphere into the Martian atmosphere, densifying it rather quickly (to Earth-normal levels within a few years) for rapid terraforming of the Martian surface.

This sort of project would help work out all the kinks of operating stargates at much longer distances.

The biggest problem with terraforming Mars is its very weak magnetic field. Humans wouldn't be able to survive there for long with the bombardment of cosmic rays. I don't really know any way around that problem besides habitation modules.

Well, we could mine all the copper in the Solar System then wrap Mars like an electric motor then start applying current ;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/09/2011 10:51 pm


Well, we could mine all the copper in the Solar System then wrap Mars like an electric motor then start applying current ;)

That sounds like it would take quite a bit of resources and time. Maybe too much to consider it viable.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: LegendCJS on 02/09/2011 11:10 pm


Well I've actually proposed the first gated wormholes to be established between Titan and Mars, as a conduit to vent Titanian atmosphere into the Martian atmosphere, densifying it rather quickly (to Earth-normal levels within a few years) for rapid terraforming of the Martian surface.

This sort of project would help work out all the kinks of operating stargates at much longer distances.

The biggest problem with terraforming Mars is its very weak magnetic field. Humans wouldn't be able to survive there for long with the bombardment of cosmic rays. I don't really know any way around that problem besides habitation modules.

Well, we could mine all the copper in the Solar System then wrap Mars like an electric motor then start applying current ;)

Live in caves, or develop gene therapies that make the damage irrelevant (certainly possible in the future we are talking about).  The issue with tera-forming mars and a lack of a planetary magnetic field is that the solar wind will blow away any atmosphere over long enough time scales.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 02/10/2011 01:29 am
Would it help if Mars had a large moon?

This is the M-E thread, after all...

...

Alternately, might it be possible to drill holes at the poles and backfill with molten iron, down to the point where a magnetic connection could be made with the core, and then simply energize?  Or would convective effects in the mantle ruin any such attempt?

The loss of atmosphere is such a planetary-scale problem that I suspect it warrants a planetary-scale solution.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 02/10/2011 02:18 am
Would it help if Mars had a large moon?

This is the M-E thread, after all...

...

Talking about moving whole moons or large asteroids?  You've got to stop thinking on a small scale.  :)

Some of those Earth size planets Kepler is finding could be moved into the Earth and Mars trojan points. Just pick ones that have a decent atmosphere and magnetic field.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/10/2011 07:36 pm


Well I've actually proposed the first gated wormholes to be established between Titan and Mars, as a conduit to vent Titanian atmosphere into the Martian atmosphere, densifying it rather quickly (to Earth-normal levels within a few years) for rapid terraforming of the Martian surface.

This sort of project would help work out all the kinks of operating stargates at much longer distances.

The biggest problem with terraforming Mars is its very weak magnetic field. Humans wouldn't be able to survive there for long with the bombardment of cosmic rays. I don't really know any way around that problem besides habitation modules.

Actually this isnt really a significant problem. Mars is twice as far from the sun, so it gets a quarter of the insolation, which also means one quarter of the solar cosmic rays, that Earth does.

Secondly, to reach Earth normal pressure at martian sea level will actually require more atmosphere mass due to the lower gravity, than Earth has, so you will see a significantly greater effect of the atmosphere blocking more cosmic rays on Mars than it does on Earth.

While cosmic rays may remain an issue for martian airline travel at high altitudes, at martian sea level all you would need is a hat with a wide brim. Atmospheric pressure falls off more slowly under Martian gravity, so the Martian atmosphere air column will be much higher than Earth, possibly as much as 50% more, as the atmosphere reaches Earth normal.

This means you'll see much higher cloud cover, and the cosmic rays will actually serve to improve cloud formation despite the lower average humidty.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/10/2011 07:38 pm
Would it help if Mars had a large moon?

This is the M-E thread, after all...

...

Talking about moving whole moons or large asteroids?  You've got to stop thinking on a small scale.  :)

Some of those Earth size planets Kepler is finding could be moved into the Earth and Mars trojan points. Just pick ones that have a decent atmosphere and magnetic field.

Actually, I've thought that moving Ceres into orbit around Mars may be a very good long term goal. It would help restart the Martian geological/tectonic cycle, help generate an electromagnetic field, plus Ceres is a pretty wet place, so its ices should melt and we'd wind up with an oceanic moon, possibly drain the water from Ceres down to the Martian surface to expand the size of the northern ocean and improve the overall water cycle.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/10/2011 07:42 pm
I was thinking the same.  The practical difficulties of establishing a wormhole between planetary surfaces would have to be huge:

Accurate targeting
Constantly compensating for relative movement
Pressure differentials
Biological cross contamination

Not to mention safety. That's a lot of energy being manipulated. Not sure I want that on the surface of the planet I live on...

Most likely if a wormhole can be created and targeted, it would be from interplanetary space (perhaps an Earth Trojan point?) to somewhere in the vicinity of the destination star. Then ME spacecraft would ferry people from Earth through the wormhole and on to their destination.

I wouldn't put one anywhere near Earth, in case something bad happened. Like an asteroid from the destination system coming through at high relative velocity. Even though it would be unlikely to hit Earth, it could smash the wormhole generator, or waiting ship, and flood near-Earth space with debris.

Well I've actually proposed the first gated wormholes to be established between Titan and Mars, as a conduit to vent Titanian atmosphere into the Martian atmosphere, densifying it rather quickly (to Earth-normal levels within a few years) for rapid terraforming of the Martian surface.

This sort of project would help work out all the kinks of operating stargates at much longer distances.
Did you consider atmosphere transfer from Venus to Mars, or perhaps to Mars from a combination of sources? Water from some ice moons, for example. Would the water pressure be high enough? Just thinking about the make-up of the resulting Martian atmosphere.

I did consider atmosphere from Venus, but it turns out Venus has very little nitrogen in its atmosphere. When Mars is warmed up a few degrees, the CO2 in ice and regolith thats there already will outgass over a few decades to produce about 300 millibars of CO2 atmosphere. With the introduction of plant life, most of this CO2 will eventually become O2, so what Mars needs most is Nitrogen to fill out the rest of its atmospheric needs. Titan is the place to get it.

But yes, water could be gotten from Europa or Enceladus, or just from Ceres if the current estimates of 15% water on Ceres hold out when our probe gets there.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 02/10/2011 08:03 pm
Quote from: mlorrey link=topic=13020.msg691215#msg691215
Mars is twice as far from the sun, so it gets a quarter of the insolation
[/quote

Mars is at 1.52 au, so gets about 1/2.3 as much insolation.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/14/2011 07:43 pm
Quote from: mlorrey link=topic=13020.msg691215#msg691215
Mars is twice as far from the sun, so it gets a quarter of the insolation

Mars is at 1.52 au, so gets about 1/2.3 as much insolation.

Fair enough. So it gets about 40% of the insolation and 40% of the solar cosmic rays as Earth gets. They both get equivalent amounts of galactic cosmic rays.

My other points still stand: a deeper and more massive air column means more shielding than Earth's atmosphere provides. Cosmic rays still get through Earth's magnetic field, and are a problem only if someone lives permanently at 30,000 ft altitude (basically on top of Mt Everest). Most of the mass of Earth's atmosphere is below that altitude.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Toddburkett on 02/18/2011 12:05 am
supposing that wormholes are indeed possible without time paradoxes and stuff... would we be able to DETECT a wormhole???

i mean... lets say we are a bit xenophobic and are suspicious of the possibility of aliens having easy access to our star system. Would we be able to detect such breaches in our defenses?

What defenses? 

We don't even know where all the Earth Orbit crossing objects in our solar system are, and have no way to stop any impactors we might detect.

Worrying about alien wormholes is a bit premature. If hostile aliens have that technology already we're stuffed.

And I for one would welcome our new alien overlords.  :)

Interesting concept...

The industrial level required to send even a small probe from Alpha Centauri on a 75 year sublight trip is approximately equivalent to the year 2500 A.D. If it was actually a war of conquest with military-level like devotion of the industrial complex, maybe then we could hope to fight back because their equivalent tech and industrial development level would be lower.

So if we shoot at the alien equivalents of NASA, we'd be stuffed because then the alien equivalent of the USAF rolls in.


If we had wormhole technology and wanted to send one end of the worm hole to another star we could use the wormhole to provide fuel for the spaceship. That way we wouldn't have to carry any fuel and that mass wouldn't work against us. For instance we could drop the earthbound wormhole into the deep ocean and send a stream of water through the wormhole to the spaceship at thousands of pounds per square inch into a reaction chamber (containment chamber) and then to a nozzle outlet at the back of the spaceship. If we didn't want to drop it into deep ocean we could drop it onto the surface of Venus, that's 1300 psi, mostly carbon dioxide. If you really want to get fancy, drop one onto Jupiter and you can get as much expansion as you want, up to millions of psi. You could push a planet around with that kind of pressure, eventually.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/18/2011 03:25 am
supposing that wormholes are indeed possible without time paradoxes and stuff... would we be able to DETECT a wormhole???

i mean... lets say we are a bit xenophobic and are suspicious of the possibility of aliens having easy access to our star system. Would we be able to detect such breaches in our defenses?

What defenses? 

We don't even know where all the Earth Orbit crossing objects in our solar system are, and have no way to stop any impactors we might detect.

Worrying about alien wormholes is a bit premature. If hostile aliens have that technology already we're stuffed.

And I for one would welcome our new alien overlords.  :)

Interesting concept...

The industrial level required to send even a small probe from Alpha Centauri on a 75 year sublight trip is approximately equivalent to the year 2500 A.D. If it was actually a war of conquest with military-level like devotion of the industrial complex, maybe then we could hope to fight back because their equivalent tech and industrial development level would be lower.

So if we shoot at the alien equivalents of NASA, we'd be stuffed because then the alien equivalent of the USAF rolls in.

I don't think we will have to wait 5 centuries to get warp drive technology, and certainly not to merely get Mach-effect level impulse technology. With impulse thrusters you could easily make the trip to or from Alpha Centauri in a generation.

However, I consider the real potential unknown threat to be if/when we discover/identify the red dwarf Nemesis thought by some to be sitting ~1 light year away in a highly elliptical orbit. Such a distance is quite within the limits of present day technology to reach in a trip of less than 20 years (pulsed fusion propulsion with thermonuclear warheads), which means if any intelligence evolved on such a world, assuming it exists, then there is a true potential threat there.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 02/18/2011 04:40 am
Reader GoatGuy at Nextbigfuture has this to say on the main ME conjecture:

Quote
FINALLY, the Mach Effect itself poses serious violations-of-physics problems, which most likely obviate its existence. Imagine for the moment that two equations of MachEffect vehicles are true:

A = ΔV = KME × PELECTRIC / M
V = KME × PELECTRIC × T / M

EKINETIC = ˝MV˛
EKINETIC = ˝M × ( KME × PELECTRIC × T / M )˛
EKINETIC = ˝K˛P˛T˛/M

Which is to say the kinetic energy rises per the square of time ... since the K and E and M are constants. But, the energy put into the system is linear over time. Now - connect the dots - and you'll realize that when T = (2M)/(K˛P) ... the amount of electric energy input to the Mach device equals the amount of kinetic energy of the craft itself. After that, the craft's energy exceeds the electrical energy input...
FACTOR                      VALUE   UNITS       NOTES
-------------  ------------------------  ------------  -----------------------------------------------------------------
Mass                       10,000.00   kg             10 ton craft
K                                        0.01   N/W           low, but real conversion factor
P                        9,800,000.00    W              power needed for "1 G"
2M/K˛P                           20.41    sec            sec, from dead stop, to kinetic energy exceeding electrical imput
A                                         9.80   m/s˛          Acceleration of craft
V                                    200.00   m/s           velocity at cut-over where kinetic exceeds electrical
E                          200,000,000   J                Kinetic energy (== electrical input) at that point

It doesn't matter one whit whether the ME force (K) is really weak, or really strong - the equation works out to some time T where the kinetic energy of the moving vessel exceeds the energy actually put into it. After that point, it is a perpetual-motion machine (conceptually).

Because it's beyond me, I'm copying it here in case this wasn't already covered earlier in this thread.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/making-stargates-science-of-absurdly.html#comment-150634322
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/18/2011 04:52 am
Reader GoatGuy at Nextbigfuture has this to say on the main ME conjecture:

Quote
FINALLY, the Mach Effect itself poses serious violations-of-physics problems, which most likely obviate its existence. Imagine for the moment that two equations of MachEffect vehicles are true:

A = ΔV = KME × PELECTRIC / M
V = KME × PELECTRIC × T / M

EKINETIC = ˝MV˛
EKINETIC = ˝M × ( KME × PELECTRIC × T / M )˛
EKINETIC = ˝K˛P˛T˛/M

Which is to say the kinetic energy rises per the square of time ... since the K and E and M are constants. But, the energy put into the system is linear over time. Now - connect the dots - and you'll realize that when T = (2M)/(K˛P) ... the amount of electric energy input to the Mach device equals the amount of kinetic energy of the craft itself. After that, the craft's energy exceeds the electrical energy input...
FACTOR                      VALUE   UNITS       NOTES
-------------  ------------------------  ------------  -----------------------------------------------------------------
Mass                       10,000.00   kg             10 ton craft
K                                        0.01   N/W           low, but real conversion factor
P                        9,800,000.00    W              power needed for "1 G"
2M/K˛P                           20.41    sec            sec, from dead stop, to kinetic energy exceeding electrical imput
A                                         9.80   m/s˛          Acceleration of craft
V                                    200.00   m/s           velocity at cut-over where kinetic exceeds electrical
E                          200,000,000   J                Kinetic energy (== electrical input) at that point

It doesn't matter one whit whether the ME force (K) is really weak, or really strong - the equation works out to some time T where the kinetic energy of the moving vessel exceeds the energy actually put into it. After that point, it is a perpetual-motion machine (conceptually).

Because it's beyond me, I'm copying it here in case this wasn't already covered earlier in this thread.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/making-stargates-science-of-absurdly.html#comment-150634322

I've seen this sort of criticism before, typically it is because they are using bad equations that form a false conjecture, a straw man, with which to debunk the idea, rather than using the actual equations that Woodward has published and which are actual physics compliant with general relativity.

However the most simple explanation for why, even if this guys equations were accurate, it doesnt result in a perpetual motion machine of a type that violates conservation laws: because the Mach Effect treats the universe as the system, not just some localized device.

There is no net conservation violation, therefore, no perpetuum mobile.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/18/2011 05:56 am


I've seen this sort of criticism before, typically it is because they are using bad equations that form a false conjecture, a straw man, with which to debunk the idea, rather than using the actual equations that Woodward has published and which are actual physics compliant with general relativity.

However the most simple explanation for why, even if this guys equations were accurate, it doesnt result in a perpetual motion machine of a type that violates conservation laws: because the Mach Effect treats the universe as the system, not just some localized device.

There is no net conservation violation, therefore, no perpetuum mobile.

Yeah, I don't understand why people keep perpetuating the idea that Woodward's concept violates conservation of momentum when it clearly relies on it (albeit not in an obvious way).

I hope Paul responds to this criticism.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 02/18/2011 07:02 am
If we had wormhole technology and wanted to send one end of the worm hole to another star we could use the wormhole to provide fuel for the spaceship. That way we wouldn't have to carry any fuel and that mass wouldn't work against us.

True.  But this sort of presupposes that we've developed wormhole technology without going through field propulsion first.

If Mach-effect is how wormholes work, it would be a much, much better idea under almost any circumstances to simply use M-E thrusters rather than wasting some hapless planet's atmosphere...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/18/2011 04:53 pm
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 stargates 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.

GeeGee:

The last known paper on Harold (Sonny) White's QVF/MHD conjecture was published in the AIP sponsored STAIF-2007 Conference.  The Abstract and url to same is below:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AIPC..880..987W

""Inertial Mass Dependency on Local Vacuum Fluctuation Mean Free Path"
White, H. G.

SPACE TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL FORUM-STAIF 2007: 11th Conf Thermophys.Applic.in Micrograv.; 24th Symp Space Nucl.Pwr.Propulsion; 5th Conf Hum/Robotic Techn & Vision Space Explor.; 5th Symp Space Coloniz.; 4th Symp New Frontrs & Future Con. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 880, pp. 987-994 (2007).

The intent of this narrative is to propose a relationship between the vacuum energy density, light-radius of the universe, and the plank force. The equation is proposed to infer a connection between inertial mass and an observer's light horizon. This horizon is conjectured to be the mean free path for vacuum fluctuations as seen by an observer in deep space. This fundamental relationship will then be derived from a gravitational wave equation. Once this has been derived, the results will be extended to derive an equation to calculate the effect local matter has on the mean free path of a vacuum fluctuation, and hence the local vacuum energy density (vacuum fluctuation pileup). The paper will conclude by applying the theoretical framework to calculate expected thrust signals in an externally applied ExB application meant to induce plasma drift in the vacuum fluctuations. Current experimental results from domestic and international labs will be addressed.

Keywords: Mathematical and relativistic aspects of cosmology, Quantum cosmology"

An experimental test on this QVF/MHD conjecture was pursued after this paper was published by Sonny White and me, but alas we ran into vacuum plasma glow discharge issues that we could not resolve with the funding at hand.  So the experiment had to terminated with no results published, for we never got the resonant cavity's ac voltage high enough to see any of the predicted effects.

PS:  I wouldn't put too much stock in the Millis paper's warp dirve energy magnitude conclusions, for the rule set governing this pure GRT based wormhole and warpdrive energy calculation is anything but complete at this stage of the game.  We have to wait for the arrival of a vetted Quantum Gravity theory that also includes Woodward's work to perform such calculations with any degree of confidence, or just try to build a stargate and see what happens.  However, I'd rather do that experiment on the Moon, or better yet Mars in case something really bad happens...
 
Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 02/18/2011 06:01 pm
Reader GoatGuy at Nextbigfuture has this to say on the main ME conjecture:

Quote
FINALLY, the Mach Effect itself poses serious violations-of-physics problems, which most likely obviate its existence. Imagine for the moment that two equations of MachEffect vehicles are true:

A = ΔV = KME × PELECTRIC / M
V = KME × PELECTRIC × T / M

EKINETIC = ˝MV˛
EKINETIC = ˝M × ( KME × PELECTRIC × T / M )˛
EKINETIC = ˝K˛P˛T˛/M

Which is to say the kinetic energy rises per the square of time ... since the K and E and M are constants. But, the energy put into the system is linear over time. Now - connect the dots - and you'll realize that when T = (2M)/(K˛P) ... the amount of electric energy input to the Mach device equals the amount of kinetic energy of the craft itself. After that, the craft's energy exceeds the electrical energy input...
FACTOR                      VALUE   UNITS       NOTES
-------------  ------------------------  ------------  -----------------------------------------------------------------
Mass                       10,000.00   kg             10 ton craft
K                                        0.01   N/W           low, but real conversion factor
P                        9,800,000.00    W              power needed for "1 G"
2M/K˛P                           20.41    sec            sec, from dead stop, to kinetic energy exceeding electrical imput
A                                         9.80   m/s˛          Acceleration of craft
V                                    200.00   m/s           velocity at cut-over where kinetic exceeds electrical
E                          200,000,000   J                Kinetic energy (== electrical input) at that point

It doesn't matter one whit whether the ME force (K) is really weak, or really strong - the equation works out to some time T where the kinetic energy of the moving vessel exceeds the energy actually put into it. After that point, it is a perpetual-motion machine (conceptually).

Because it's beyond me, I'm copying it here in case this wasn't already covered earlier in this thread.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/making-stargates-science-of-absurdly.html#comment-150634322

I've seen this sort of criticism before, typically it is because they are using bad equations that form a false conjecture, a straw man, with which to debunk the idea, rather than using the actual equations that Woodward has published and which are actual physics compliant with general relativity.

However the most simple explanation for why, even if this guys equations were accurate, it doesnt result in a perpetual motion machine of a type that violates conservation laws: because the Mach Effect treats the universe as the system, not just some localized device.

There is no net conservation violation, therefore, no perpetuum mobile.

The equations are not accurate, it is a simple restatement of the argument that was already covered in this thread 6 months ago.

The equations are incorrect because they are falsely constrained solutions to the ME equations Woodward derives. If you constrain mass to be constant, then yes, you get this result for these equations--but if you falsely constrain mass to be constant, than inertial fluctuations are obviously precluded as well.

So it's a variation of disproving the means(ME) by arbitrarily precluding the stated required conditions(variability of inertial mass) and working backwards to make it look scientific.

Dishonest line of argument. You can't disprove the statement "a+b=c" by starting from the assumption that "b" doesn't exist.

That's called "asking a different question.."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 02/18/2011 08:45 pm
I think the Millis wormhole vs. warp drive energy calculations come from Puthoff, Davis, and Haisch. At least this is where I saw it for the first time.


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/18/2011 08:48 pm
Folks:

Goatguy apparently doesn't like his mass to fluctuate, I guess because Newton's three laws didn't mention this possibility.  However, when you take Newton’s third law and apply Einstein’s GRT and Sciama's inertial induction ideas to it, mass fluctuations fall out naturally whenever the required conditions for same are met per Dr. Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) derivation.  And those conditions for generating mass fluctuaions are that an energy storing media like a capacitor dielectric has to be bulk accelerated relative to the distant stars, while concurrently undergoing a large power flux through this energy storing media.  That in a nutshell is what the M-E is all about.  And so far the M-E derivation has met all comers and has not been found wanting...

Best,
Paul M.

PS: Some one at Next Big Future requested Woodward's Mach-Effect Derivation paper so it is appeded to this note.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: BarryKirk on 02/21/2011 05:35 pm
Wow, just finished reading the report... This is excellent news....

Cart before horse, but here's hoping for Star Trek style impulse engines someday... maybe soon...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 02/21/2011 06:32 pm
since GoatGuy didnt came here, and PaulMarch didnt went there, I am bridgeing the two topics by copying and pasteing the arguments in the two threads.

I invited GoatGuy to this thread, since it would be better than all this copy/paste


Quote from: GoatGuy
I'm not sure I should thank you for 'cutting and pasting', but your intentions are pure, no doubt.

Got something for you - the mass fluctuations absolutely do not matter external to the Mach Effect system. It would be one thing if the mass of the ME components was diminishing, and remaining smaller/diminished after the driver is turned off. Then - all would be well. Mass, converted to energy. If the mass of the components return to their original mass, then ... what happens to all the conserved kinetic energy that was imparted to them? Do they suddenly decelerate, again conserving the energy invested in the device? If yes ... then again "we're good", and I'll stop debating the issue.

If not - if the device retains its velocity (which is at the very core of the purported and imagined uses for the drive, should it ever become practical), and moreover, if the host apparatus ("space ship", or "flywheel", or "lab bench pendulum" or whatever) retains the kinetic energy imparted to it at constant acceleration for constant ME device input power, then after exactly 2M/(k˛P) seconds, the whole thing - space ship, flywheel, maglev train, you name it - the whole thing has more kinetic energy than was invested in the ME propulsion device itself.

Thereafter, one can tap the whole for real, useable power, and we can get rid of virtually all nuclear, thermodynamic, hydroelectric and climactic (wind, sun) power sources. Really.

NOTE - to those who continue to cite that "Goatguy doesn't like..." this is not the case at all. I'm merely taking an exception to one huge - absolutely titanically huge - problem. Constant acceleration, regardless of velocity, for constant power invested in the Mach Effect propulsion device. I don't care if it has gerbils, spheres of unobtanium, plates of basalt, or extra-dark roast Sumatra coffee beans inside, and whether they change mass, turn colors, sing Dixie or have dark sexual liasons inside. Viewed as a "black box", the box violates the underlying principle of conservation (and equivalence) of energy - electrical and kinetic.

OR SOMEONE will just up and admit that the device has a special property that makes it seem like it is violating the energy/kinetic dynamic ... but really it is (as someone else said) "catching the gravinertial force that pervades the whole universe, like a sail on a sailboat catches the wind". Very eloquent and expressive! If this is so, then is the "wind" directional? It should be! Indeed, it should be easily measurable to have diurnal and seasonal, and latitudinal and longitudinal variation.

So again, instead of continually citing that GoatGuy is bringing up long-disproven (or simply battered-to-death) arguments, just take it on one more time, from the ground-floor up, so that all our good readers can see the debate, instead of the results of some other debate. The results won't be the same.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/21/2011 08:01 pm
Interesting debate. I'd like to see what Woodward himself has to say about GoatGuy's and Sebtel's argument.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 02/21/2011 08:04 pm
I guess the arguments are simple enough that StarDrive can give a good reply.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 02/22/2011 12:41 am
since GoatGuy didnt came here, and PaulMarch didnt went there, I am bridgeing the two topics by copying and pasteing the arguments in the two threads.

I invited GoatGuy to this thread, since it would be better than all this copy/paste


Quote from: GoatGuy
I'm not sure I should thank you for 'cutting and pasting', but your intentions are pure, no doubt.

Got something for you - the mass fluctuations absolutely do not matter external to the Mach Effect system. It would be one thing if the mass of the ME components was diminishing, and remaining smaller/diminished after the driver is turned off. Then - all would be well. Mass, converted to energy. If the mass of the components return to their original mass, then ... what happens to all the conserved kinetic energy that was imparted to them? Do they suddenly decelerate, again conserving the energy invested in the device? If yes ... then again "we're good", and I'll stop debating the issue.

If not - if the device retains its velocity (which is at the very core of the purported and imagined uses for the drive, should it ever become practical), and moreover, if the host apparatus ("space ship", or "flywheel", or "lab bench pendulum" or whatever) retains the kinetic energy imparted to it at constant acceleration for constant ME device input power, then after exactly 2M/(k˛P) seconds, the whole thing - space ship, flywheel, maglev train, you name it - the whole thing has more kinetic energy than was invested in the ME propulsion device itself.

Thereafter, one can tap the whole for real, useable power, and we can get rid of virtually all nuclear, thermodynamic, hydroelectric and climactic (wind, sun) power sources. Really.



Most would not consider that as a 'drawback', but reality always has a few wrinkles-- after all, the theoretical physics tells us that all our energy needs should be easily met by nuclear fission alone, yet we choose less efficient methods for most needs all the same-- no one really knows what engineering difficulties might present themselves with trying to use ME to generate power.

It's not by itself an argument that it doesn't work though.

Quote

NOTE - to those who continue to cite that "Goatguy doesn't like..." this is not the case at all. I'm merely taking an exception to one huge - absolutely titanically huge - problem. Constant acceleration, regardless of velocity, for constant power invested in the Mach Effect propulsion device. I don't care if it has gerbils, spheres of unobtanium, plates of basalt, or extra-dark roast Sumatra coffee beans inside, and whether they change mass, turn colors, sing Dixie or have dark sexual liasons inside. Viewed as a "black box", the box violates the underlying principle of conservation (and equivalence) of energy - electrical and kinetic.

OR SOMEONE will just up and admit that the device has a special property that makes it seem like it is violating the energy/kinetic dynamic ... but really it is (as someone else said) "catching the gravinertial force that pervades the whole universe, like a sail on a sailboat catches the wind". Very eloquent and expressive! If this is so, then is the "wind" directional? It should be! Indeed, it should be easily measurable to have diurnal and seasonal, and latitudinal and longitudinal variation.

So again, instead of continually citing that GoatGuy is bringing up long-disproven (or simply battered-to-death) arguments, just take it on one more time, from the ground-floor up, so that all our good readers can see the debate, instead of the results of some other debate. The results won't be the same.

It's much simpler than that goatguy--the statement of Mach effect is that it is getting energy from the background gravinertial field of the observeable universe. That is the description, period. There is no way to describe it in smaller boundaries. So refusing to allow that it is changing the gravinertial potential of the rest of the universe ( as Woodward says of the Far Off Active Matter) is the point of disagreement. If you want to draw the system box smaller than the physics says you ought, then fine, but you're doing opinion, not science.

If you can tell me how to derive the equations you assume are valid without pulling m out of the integral, I'll take a second look. Till then, you're pontificating without evidence.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/22/2011 04:24 am
Folks:

You need to cut some slack for GoatGuy since he was just pointing out in his strawman example that the energy books don't balance as shown, which is true.  Why, because that example did not inlcude the always present Back-EMF reaction in any electric motor, be it a linear maglev electric motor or an M-E impulse driven electric motor.  In other words, when operating an M-E motor in impulse term mode only, i.e, when it is producing only symmetrical +/- mass fluctuatons during each driven cycle, all the energy required for accelerating and decelerating the vehicle has to come from the local onboard the vehicle power supply.  No free lunch, but we still get to use the space vacuum as a maglev like reaction rail that doesn't need the expenditure of rocket propellant to produce thrust.

Now it is only when the M-E wormhole term's asymmetrical negative going mass fluctuations become dominate that the M-E device can start to harvest the gravinertial (G/I) field energy of the causally connected uninverse by using the leverage supplied by the 1/2 cycle to 1/2 cycle asymmetry in these negative going mass fluctuations that the M-E wormhole term supplies.  There is still a lot of debate as to where this M-E wormhole term derived energy comes from, but it appears to be wrapped up in the structure of the subatomic particles that make up the accelerated dielectric in the M-E engine and their interactions with the G/I field.  However we are effectively talking about transient amounts of 100% conversion of mass into energy (E= m*c^2) during the peak of each negative going mass excursion...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/22/2011 04:50 am
Paul,

This is unrelated to the discussion at hand but what does Woodward have to say about zero-point energy & the apparent magnitude of it?

Bernard Haisch & Garret Moddel released a patent in 2008 for "extracting energy from the vacuum" which has yielded some rather interesting experimental results (although still quite inconclusive.) If they do somehow manage to extract this energy (I highly doubt it), how would this be explained by Woodward's theory?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: scienceguy on 02/22/2011 05:13 am
Folks:

{snip}

Now it is only when the M-E wormhole term's asymmetrical negative going mass fluctuations become dominate that the M-E device can start to harvest the gravinertial (G/I) field energy of the causally connected uninverse by using the leverage supplied by the 1/2 cycle to 1/2 cycle asymmetry in these negative going mass fluctuations that the M-E wormhole term supplies.  There is still a lot of debate as to where this M-E wormhole term derived energy comes from, but it appears to be wrapped up in the structure of the subatomic particles that make up the accelerated dielectric in the M-E engine and their interactions with the G/I field.  However we are effectively talking about transient amounts of 100% conversion of mass into energy (E= m*c^2) during the peak of each negative going mass excursion...


So let me see if I understand this correctly: you're saying that every mass turns into a tiny bit of negative mass every once in a while? This is the "negative going mass excursion"?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 02/22/2011 08:50 am
There seems to be a lot of unnecessary handwaving going on here, and I suspect it may be damaging the reputation of the M-E effort.  I'm sorry, but...

Star-Drive, either you're wrong or I've utterly misunderstood how M-E thrusters are supposed to behave in a practical sense.  Please read carefully:

It doesn't matter at all what regime the thruster is operating in.  It doesn't matter how the thruster works, so long as it does.  If it can thrust indefinitely without expending propellant or experiencing significant thrust decay, then eventually, the kinetic energy of the vehicle will exceed the total energy input to the thruster, because the former is proportional to v^2 and the latter is proportional to v.

This can happen because the drive is reacting off the rest of the universe, and that is what GoatGuy is missing.  That is how the drive must work in order to conserve momentum, and if it does work this way, then it can be shown that (a) momentum is conserved universally, (b) energy can be conserved universally depending on how exactly the device is supposed to work (if it does work, I rather suspect it will be in such a way as to conserve energy...), and (c) the thruster can, in principle, be used to harvest energy from the rest of the universe, appearing locally to be an over-unity device.

The example could just as easily be cast as a flywheel with a set of M-E thrusters on the edge, rotating it.  At some steady-state angular velocity, the power required to run the thrusters could be completely supplied by a generator hooked up to the flywheel.  Past that speed, you get net power.  It doesn't matter what the thrust efficiency of the thrusters is; as long as it's above zero it is possible, in principle, to specify sufficiently large values of radius and angular velocity for the flywheel such that hooking it to a generator would yield more power than the thrusters consume.


The key question, I think, is this:  what is the thruster pushing on?  What is the relative velocity of the Far-Off Active Mass?  On Earth, if you drive a car you're pushing on the ground to go faster, and it's very efficient, but it's not over-unity because the ground is at a set reference velocity and doesn't move to help you along.  But if an M-E thruster is pushing on distant matter, there's no substantial difference between 0 km/s and 1 km/s, because the matter in the universe is flying all over the place.  And it seems to me that in order to achieve a measurable thrust efficiency, an M-E thruster would have to preferentially interact with matter near its own velocity.  Any way you slice it, the conditions seen by the thruster do not change markedly as the vehicle accelerates.  In other words, the ground moves with the car.

It's much simpler than that goatguy--the statement of Mach effect is that it is getting energy from the background gravinertial field of the observeable universe. That is the description, period. There is no way to describe it in smaller boundaries. So refusing to allow that it is changing the gravinertial potential of the rest of the universe ( as Woodward says of the Far Off Active Matter) is the point of disagreement. If you want to draw the system box smaller than the physics says you ought, then fine, but you're doing opinion, not science.

Yeah, basically.

Quote
If you can tell me how to derive the equations you assume are valid without pulling m out of the integral, I'll take a second look. Till then, you're pontificating without evidence.

The equations he assumes are valid are valid.  It's simple Newtonian mechanics, applied not to the dielectric but to the entire spacecraft.  In fact, the thruster can be assumed to be off at both endpoints of his analysis, so it literally can't affect the equations at all.  All this talk about back-EMF and mass fluctuations has nothing whatsoever to do with the question.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 02/22/2011 01:28 pm

Quote
If you can tell me how to derive the equations you assume are valid without pulling m out of the integral, I'll take a second look. Till then, you're pontificating without evidence.

The equations he assumes are valid are valid.  It's simple Newtonian mechanics, applied not to the dielectric but to the entire spacecraft.  In fact, the thruster can be assumed to be off at both endpoints of his analysis, so it literally can't affect the equations at all.  All this talk about back-EMF and mass fluctuations has nothing whatsoever to do with the question.

Ok, I see where I went wrong on the assumption that these were meant to describe energy in the dielectric. Still, they are not valid--the equations he's using, as you point out using standard Newtonian mechanics, describe a CLOSED system (the spacecraft), in which electrical energy is put into a "black box"(an OPEN system) which is contained in the system. That is where he gets the thought experiment to the point where "kinetic energy of the craft is greater than the electrical energy put into it," in reality this is not possible.

It's nonsense, either it is a closed system or not. If it is closed, then the energy put into the device has to be accounted for on the other side of the equation some how (that would be in changes to the gravinertial potential of the rest of the universe), and it is not accounted for in this instance. If it is open, then clearly you cannot draw any conclusions about violation of conservation or energy.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 02/22/2011 01:40 pm

 There is still a lot of debate as to where this M-E wormhole term derived energy comes from, but it appears to be wrapped up in the structure of the subatomic particles that make up the accelerated dielectric in the M-E engine and their interactions with the G/I field.  However we are effectively talking about transient amounts of 100% conversion of mass into energy (E= m*c^2) during the peak of each negative going mass excursion...


Paul, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is entirely your own speculation as to the mechanism that would actually transfer momenergy from the dieletric to the rest of the universe. I don't believe Woodward has ever said one way or the other what mechanism he thinks exists for basic "less than 100%" mass fluctuations OR for the wormhole term. Correct?

Also, thanks for posting that paper. It really puts a bow on a lot of the criticisms. It's exactly the "from the basics" exploration of mass fluctuations and what an experiment would actually present that I had been looking for.

I never thought before about the problems of a speed-of-light mass fluctuation propagation vs. the speed-of-sound propagation of an oscillating acceleration like a PZT stack, but it makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/22/2011 05:07 pm

 There is still a lot of debate as to where this M-E wormhole term derived energy comes from, but it appears to be wrapped up in the structure of the subatomic particles that make up the accelerated dielectric in the M-E engine and their interactions with the G/I field.  However we are effectively talking about transient amounts of 100% conversion of mass into energy (E= m*c^2) during the peak of each negative going mass excursion...


Paul, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is entirely your own speculation as to the mechanism that would actually transfer momenergy from the dieletric to the rest of the universe. I don't believe Woodward has ever said one way or the other what mechanism he thinks exists for basic "less than 100%" mass fluctuations OR for the wormhole term. Correct?

Also, thanks for posting that paper. It really puts a bow on a lot of the criticisms. It's exactly the "from the basics" exploration of mass fluctuations and what an experiment would actually present that I had been looking for.

I never thought before about the problems of a speed-of-light mass fluctuation propagation vs. the speed-of-sound propagation of an oscillating acceleration like a PZT stack, but it makes perfect sense.


Cuddihy:

"Paul, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is entirely your own speculation as to the mechanism that would actually transfer momenergy from the dieletric to the rest of the universe."

You are correct, my statements in my last post at this forum are my own speculations, but speculations based on Woodward's already published "Twists of Fate" paper, see attached, and Woodward’s yet to be published Stargate paper that was written for the SPESIF-2011 Conference, (http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html), then withdrawn at the last minute after Woodward and the SPESIF editor (Tony Robertson) got into a tiff over author's rights.  Both of these papers examine the possibility of using the 1960 ADM (Arnowitt, Deser, and Misner) model of subatomic particles that model all subatomic particles as being composed of a very large, but finite negative G/I exotic mass dressed by the ambient G/I field into the small positive G/I mass observed in the labs.  Woodward uses the ADM subatomic model for his current explanation of how the M-E wormhole term may operate and be expressed and controlled in the real world.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 02/22/2011 05:12 pm
@cuddihy:  I didn't say the equations described a closed system; I said they were valid.  And they ARE valid, for the portion of the system he's describing.

Where he's gone wrong - the ONLY place he's gone wrong - is in assuming that he's describing a closed system.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/22/2011 05:37 pm
There seems to be a lot of unnecessary handwaving going on here, and I suspect it may be damaging the reputation of the M-E effort.  I'm sorry, but...

Star-Drive, either you're wrong or I've utterly misunderstood how M-E thrusters are supposed to behave in a practical sense.  Please read carefully:

It doesn't matter at all what regime the thruster is operating in.  It doesn't matter how the thruster works, so long as it does.  If it can thrust indefinitely without expending propellant or experiencing significant thrust decay, then eventually, the kinetic energy of the vehicle will exceed the total energy input to the thruster, because the former is proportional to v^2 and the latter is proportional to v.

This can happen because the drive is reacting off the rest of the universe, and that is what GoatGuy is missing.  That is how the drive must work in order to conserve momentum, and if it does work this way, then it can be shown that (a) momentum is conserved universally, (b) energy can be conserved universally depending on how exactly the device is supposed to work (if it does work, I rather suspect it will be in such a way as to conserve energy...), and (c) the thruster can, in principle, be used to harvest energy from the rest of the universe, appearing locally to be an over-unity device.

The example could just as easily be cast as a flywheel with a set of M-E thrusters on the edge, rotating it.  At some steady-state angular velocity, the power required to run the thrusters could be completely supplied by a generator hooked up to the flywheel.  Past that speed, you get net power.  It doesn't matter what the thrust efficiency of the thrusters is; as long as it's above zero it is possible, in principle, to specify sufficiently large values of radius and angular velocity for the flywheel such that hooking it to a generator would yield more power than the thrusters consume.


The key question, I think, is this:  what is the thruster pushing on?  What is the relative velocity of the Far-Off Active Mass?  On Earth, if you drive a car you're pushing on the ground to go faster, and it's very efficient, but it's not over-unity because the ground is at a set reference velocity and doesn't move to help you along.  But if an M-E thruster is pushing on distant matter, there's no substantial difference between 0 km/s and 1 km/s, because the matter in the universe is flying all over the place.  And it seems to me that in order to achieve a measurable thrust efficiency, an M-E thruster would have to preferentially interact with matter near its own velocity.  Any way you slice it, the conditions seen by the thruster do not change markedly as the vehicle accelerates.  In other words, the ground moves with the car.

It's much simpler than that goatguy--the statement of Mach effect is that it is getting energy from the background gravinertial field of the observeable universe. That is the description, period. There is no way to describe it in smaller boundaries. So refusing to allow that it is changing the gravinertial potential of the rest of the universe ( as Woodward says of the Far Off Active Matter) is the point of disagreement. If you want to draw the system box smaller than the physics says you ought, then fine, but you're doing opinion, not science.

Yeah, basically.

Quote
If you can tell me how to derive the equations you assume are valid without pulling m out of the integral, I'll take a second look. Till then, you're pontificating without evidence.

The equations he assumes are valid are valid.  It's simple Newtonian mechanics, applied not to the dielectric but to the entire spacecraft.  In fact, the thruster can be assumed to be off at both endpoints of his analysis, so it literally can't affect the equations at all.  All this talk about back-EMF and mass fluctuations has nothing whatsoever to do with the question.

93143:

"The key question, I think, is this:  what is the thruster pushing on?  What is the relative velocity of the Far-Off Active Mass?  On Earth, if you drive a car you're pushing on the ground to go faster, and it's very efficient, but it's not over-unity because the ground is at a set reference velocity and doesn't move to help you along.  But if an M-E thruster is pushing on distant matter, there's no substantial difference between 0 km/s and 1 km/s, because the matter in the universe is flying all over the place.  And it seems to me that in order to achieve a measurable thrust efficiency, an M-E thruster would have to preferentially interact with matter near its own velocity.  Any way you slice it, the conditions seen by the thruster do not change markedly as the vehicle accelerates.  In other words, the ground moves with the car."

Wow!  That’s a brilliant observation that I had never thought of before.  The Far Off Active Mass (FOAM) particles of the causally connected universe will have a Gaussian distribution spread in its kinetic energy magnitudes as a total population ranging from the very slow to just under light speed relative to the velocity vector of the accelerated vehicle in question.  However the kinetic energy distribution maximum should peak like a black body radiator and since the background temperature of the universe is ~2.7K, there isn’t going to be a lot of fast moving ions to play with.  However as you've speculated here, any M-E device operating at frequency X may resonantly couple with the cosmological Gaussian kinetic energy spectrum closest to itself.  It just won’t be able to interact with all of it. The proof of this idea will of course have to come experimentally but it’s still good catch.

As to GoatGuy's constant power/constant acceleration model, yes, it’s just a Newtonian closed system analysis that has to yield conservation of energy breaking results if all the developed kinetic energy of the local system is not supplied by the local power supply in the vehicle.  However by pointing out that the electric or M-E motor's back-EMF or its equivalent in the M-E developed by its accelerated frame of reference that’s what balances the energy books in this closed system, GoatGuy provided a service to all of us, IMO.  However, he is still not willing to accept the possibility that through the use of the M-E wormhole term that we may have finally found a way to extract energy directly from the cosmological G/I field and its source, which is his privilege and right.  It’s still up to Woodward and his followers to experimentally prove that the M-E is what it claims to be, and is the open-ended energy extraction system interested folks like to think about its many uses, if doable. 

Update:  Added FOAM M-E Interaction Chart
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: D_Dom on 02/22/2011 08:27 pm
Thanks for that, I always find more to think about here than I comprehend. Now to find an inductive counter-top stove power supply. Can I count on you for some design assistance Paul? Having recently finished my EET degree I now have time for some hands-on experimentation. Nothing clarifies my stream of consciousness like building it from the materials at hand and seeing if I can make it work as predicted.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 02/22/2011 10:11 pm
If the thruster is interacting with "Far Off Active Mass", what is the impact on that mass?

Cosmologists postulate a "dark energy" that began accelerating expansion of the universe about 5 billion years ago (IIRC). Could that be evidence that some advanced civilisation began exploiting M-E to such an extent that it affected the universe at a cosmological level?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/22/2011 10:30 pm
If the thruster is interacting with "Far Off Active Mass", what is the impact on that mass?

Cosmologists postulate a "dark energy" that began accelerating expansion of the universe about 5 billion years ago (IIRC). Could that be evidence that some advanced civilisation began exploiting M-E to such an extent that it affected the universe at a cosmological level?

cheers, Martin

This is just as speculative, but Paul mentioned in one of his presentations that this G/I field could be used for instantaneous communications which are not electromagnetic in nature. If this is true, then it could explain Fermi's paradox (The great silence).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 02/23/2011 01:37 am

This is just as speculative, but Paul mentioned in one of his presentations that this G/I field could be used for instantaneous communications which are not electromagnetic in nature. If this is true, then it could explain Fermi's paradox (The great silence).

Ok, I'll bite: how? Gravity and mass fluctuations propagate at light speed. The 'faster than light' observed effect of inertial reaction is caused by the fluctuations propagating fwd& bkwds through time along the lightcone, an effect that only works because the initial mass and the inertial reaction are symmetrical. And by that I mean they originate in the same mass at the same location in space-time. So how does this in any way allow FTL communication that is not symmetrical?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 02/23/2011 01:41 am
if it can explain Fermi´s Paradox (the great silence) it doesnt explain the Fermi Paradox on the question of why they havent contacted us, because its probable there would be hundreds if not thousands of civilizations on the Milky Way alone using ME Drives. In fact, we may have arrived too late to claim any other planet to us.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 02/23/2011 01:44 am
since GoatGuy didnt came here, and PaulMarch didnt went there, I am bridgeing the two topics by copying and pasteing the arguments in the two threads.

I invited GoatGuy to this thread, since it would be better than all this copy/paste


Quote from: GoatGuy
I'm not sure I should thank you for 'cutting and pasting', but your intentions are pure, no doubt.

Got something for you - the mass fluctuations absolutely do not matter external to the Mach Effect system. It would be one thing if the mass of the ME components was diminishing, and remaining smaller/diminished after the driver is turned off. Then - all would be well. Mass, converted to energy. If the mass of the components return to their original mass, then ... what happens to all the conserved kinetic energy that was imparted to them? Do they suddenly decelerate, again conserving the energy invested in the device? If yes ... then again "we're good", and I'll stop debating the issue.

If not - if the device retains its velocity (which is at the very core of the purported and imagined uses for the drive, should it ever become practical), and moreover, if the host apparatus ("space ship", or "flywheel", or "lab bench pendulum" or whatever) retains the kinetic energy imparted to it at constant acceleration for constant ME device input power, then after exactly 2M/(k˛P) seconds, the whole thing - space ship, flywheel, maglev train, you name it - the whole thing has more kinetic energy than was invested in the ME propulsion device itself.

Thereafter, one can tap the whole for real, useable power, and we can get rid of virtually all nuclear, thermodynamic, hydroelectric and climactic (wind, sun) power sources. Really.



Most would not consider that as a 'drawback', but reality always has a few wrinkles-- after all, the theoretical physics tells us that all our energy needs should be easily met by nuclear fission alone, yet we choose less efficient methods for most needs all the same-- no one really knows what engineering difficulties might present themselves with trying to use ME to generate power.

It's not by itself an argument that it doesn't work though.

Quote

NOTE - to those who continue to cite that "Goatguy doesn't like..." this is not the case at all. I'm merely taking an exception to one huge - absolutely titanically huge - problem. Constant acceleration, regardless of velocity, for constant power invested in the Mach Effect propulsion device. I don't care if it has gerbils, spheres of unobtanium, plates of basalt, or extra-dark roast Sumatra coffee beans inside, and whether they change mass, turn colors, sing Dixie or have dark sexual liasons inside. Viewed as a "black box", the box violates the underlying principle of conservation (and equivalence) of energy - electrical and kinetic.

OR SOMEONE will just up and admit that the device has a special property that makes it seem like it is violating the energy/kinetic dynamic ... but really it is (as someone else said) "catching the gravinertial force that pervades the whole universe, like a sail on a sailboat catches the wind". Very eloquent and expressive! If this is so, then is the "wind" directional? It should be! Indeed, it should be easily measurable to have diurnal and seasonal, and latitudinal and longitudinal variation.

So again, instead of continually citing that GoatGuy is bringing up long-disproven (or simply battered-to-death) arguments, just take it on one more time, from the ground-floor up, so that all our good readers can see the debate, instead of the results of some other debate. The results won't be the same.

It's much simpler than that goatguy--the statement of Mach effect is that it is getting energy from the background gravinertial field of the observeable universe. That is the description, period. There is no way to describe it in smaller boundaries. So refusing to allow that it is changing the gravinertial potential of the rest of the universe ( as Woodward says of the Far Off Active Matter) is the point of disagreement. If you want to draw the system box smaller than the physics says you ought, then fine, but you're doing opinion, not science.

If you can tell me how to derive the equations you assume are valid without pulling m out of the integral, I'll take a second look. Till then, you're pontificating without evidence.

lol, it seems you wrote it directly to GoatGuy, expecting me to copy your answer and post there. Gee, you could cut me the trouble and post directly there, haha.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 02/23/2011 01:48 am
its just too bad GoatGuy didnt had the trouble to come to this thread to discuss.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/23/2011 02:18 am
Folks:

{snip}

Now it is only when the M-E wormhole term's asymmetrical negative going mass fluctuations become dominate that the M-E device can start to harvest the gravinertial (G/I) field energy of the causally connected uninverse by using the leverage supplied by the 1/2 cycle to 1/2 cycle asymmetry in these negative going mass fluctuations that the M-E wormhole term supplies.  There is still a lot of debate as to where this M-E wormhole term derived energy comes from, but it appears to be wrapped up in the structure of the subatomic particles that make up the accelerated dielectric in the M-E engine and their interactions with the G/I field.  However we are effectively talking about transient amounts of 100% conversion of mass into energy (E= m*c^2) during the peak of each negative going mass excursion...


So let me see if I understand this correctly: you're saying that every mass turns into a tiny bit of negative mass every once in a while? This is the "negative going mass excursion"?

The mass fluctuations are due to two things, as I understand it:

a) changes in the relativistic velocity of particles in the system. When electrons move through a circuit, they move at differing velocities depending on the resistance of the material they are moving through, as well as the gradient of the charge and field potentials. These velocities are typically a significant fraction of the speed of light, and as a result, the mass of the electron will vary as its speed varies (faster = heavier, slower = lighter).

b) exposure of the bare rest mass of the electron. According to the theoretical work Woodward describes in his papers, if you have actually read them, he says that the atomic mass we commonly ascribe to the electron (as I recall 0.0001 Atomic Units) isn't actually its bare mass, but a sort of average mass we measure from outside the electron's quantum cloud that is actually a balance between the negative bare rest mass of the actual electron and the gravinertial mass of the FOAM. Thus an electron in actuality is the exotic matter that is sought for in the physics that describe Alcubierre type warp drives and wormhole theories of Kip Thorne, the trick is to get the electron to expose this negative mass. This is, as I understand it, where the wormhole term in the equation comes in.

Now, note that according to relativity, the electron is heavier the faster it travels, and lighter the slower it is. Simplistically speaking, one can say that the 0.0001 atomic units that is commonly ascribed to the atomic mass of the electron may just be an average mass based on the average speed at which electrons have had their mass measured. It would be interesting to see what the mass of electrons are if you could bring them to absolute zero in some sort of electron-only bose-einstein condensate. I suspect that this is where you will easily see its negative mass.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/23/2011 02:22 am


Ok, I'll bite: how? Gravity and mass fluctuations propagate at light speed. The 'faster than light' observed effect of inertial reaction is caused by the fluctuations propagating fwd& bkwds through time along the lightcone, an effect that only works because the initial mass and the inertial reaction are symmetrical. And by that I mean they originate in the same mass at the same location in space-time. So how does this in any way allow FTL communication that is not symmetrical?

I don't know exactly. I'm just repeating what I've read in one of Paul's presentations. It seems I can't attach a ppt file, so I've posted the link at the bottom of my post.

Relevant part:

"If the Momenergy transmitted and received from the FOAM is truly instantaneous, then a means is at hand to implement an instantaneous communications link to any-where and any-when in this universe.

Since this G/I communication link is via non-E&M means, and since normal metals and dielectrics do not shield G/I disturbances, these G/I communication links could be received underwater or on the other side of the world"

If this is true, doesn't it have implications for Fermi's paradox?

http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/Stair-Steps-to-Stars-5-6.ppt
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 02/23/2011 02:30 am


lol, it seems you wrote it directly to GoatGuy, expecting me to copy your answer and post there. Gee, you could cut me the trouble and post directly there, haha.



Sorry aceshigh, NextBigFuture does bad things to my IE. I try to stay away.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/23/2011 02:32 am
if it can explain Fermi´s Paradox (the great silence) it doesnt explain the Fermi Paradox on the question of why they havent contacted us, because its probable there would be hundreds if not thousands of civilizations on the Milky Way alone using ME Drives. In fact, we may have arrived too late to claim any other planet to us.

There are many possible explanations for Fermi's Paradox:

a) all species eventually destroy themselves
b) all species eventually are destroyed by some inimical entity
c) species that evade destruction by some inimical entity do so by learning to shut the heck up and fake their own destruction in the interstellar airwaves.
d) the use of active high powered radio wave transmissions by intelligent species is a short-lived phase of technological development lasting 100-200 years on average, so unless another species is at the same exact phase of development we are at when their transmissions pass through our solar system, we will never detect them.
e) species developing technological civilizations are extremely rare due to the rarity of planets existing under the right conditions of gravity, crustal metallicity, radiation, meteoric bombardment, stellar stability, orbital eccentricity, frequency of nearby supernovae, etc.
f) all species that survive their own developmental risks eventually transcend into artificial technological life forms that have little or no interest in exploring other star systems, or find it easy to hide on planets they explore as "scam-dirt" (nanotech digital civilizations whose network traffic is highly encrypted and low power to be indistiguishable from a slightly elevated level of background radiation noise), or find it easier to create artificial universes with engineered singularities operating quantum simulation programs (i.e. The Simulation Argument).

It is likely that more than one of the above options is true.

Even with the wormhole technology, it is still rather energy intensive to send ships to destination star systems to construct stargate destination gates. Given the rate of technological advancement, and the energy/mass cost of sending an initial interstellar mission, it is more likely that once a civilization builds their first interstellar stargate connection, by the time it is completed, the civilization has transcended into a post-biological state and only needs to transmit data to the destination star system. Thereafter, it is only interested in sending star probes that carry a wormhole based interstellar data router to expand their data networks.

If this scenario is the likely one, then the stage human beings are currently in is like asking a modern internet broadband company why they dont wire fiber optic cables to the most primitive jungle tribes of people still living in the stone age, only a billion times more extreme.

The human species is not a profitable market for such services..... Yet.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 02/23/2011 02:38 am


Ok, I'll bite: how? Gravity and mass fluctuations propagate at light speed. The 'faster than light' observed effect of inertial reaction is caused by the fluctuations propagating fwd& bkwds through time along the lightcone, an effect that only works because the initial mass and the inertial reaction are symmetrical. And by that I mean they originate in the same mass at the same location in space-time. So how does this in any way allow FTL communication that is not symmetrical?

I don't know exactly. I'm just repeating what I've read in one of Paul's presentations. It seems I can't attach a ppt file, so I've posted the link at the bottom of my post.

Relevant part:

"If the Momenergy transmitted and received from the FOAM is truly instantaneous, then a means is at hand to implement an instantaneous communications link to any-where and any-when in this universe.

Since this G/I communication link is via non-E&M means, and since normal metals and dielectrics do not shield G/I disturbances, these G/I communication links could be received underwater or on the other side of the world"

If this is true, doesn't it have implications for Fermi's paradox?

http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/Stair-Steps-to-Stars-5-6.ppt

Thanks. I still don't get it, it would still propagate at lightspeed as far as I can tell. (and how you make two UFGs 'resonant' to each other is an additional mystery to me).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/23/2011 02:41 am
if it can explain Fermi´s Paradox (the great silence) it doesnt explain the Fermi Paradox on the question of why they havent contacted us, because its probable there would be hundreds if not thousands of civilizations on the Milky Way alone using ME Drives. In fact, we may have arrived too late to claim any other planet to us.

Why would they want to contact us?

We don't have anything to offer for a civilization that has perfected deep space travel. Assuming M-E drives, wormholes and the like are real and practical, it seems to me such a civilization would only communicate with civilizations of the same caliber. We could be a scientific curiosity to them, but that doesn't imply in any way that they would come here and have breakfast with the president while negotiating a technological exchange.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/23/2011 04:48 am


Ok, I'll bite: how? Gravity and mass fluctuations propagate at light speed. The 'faster than light' observed effect of inertial reaction is caused by the fluctuations propagating fwd& bkwds through time along the lightcone, an effect that only works because the initial mass and the inertial reaction are symmetrical. And by that I mean they originate in the same mass at the same location in space-time. So how does this in any way allow FTL communication that is not symmetrical?

I don't know exactly. I'm just repeating what I've read in one of Paul's presentations. It seems I can't attach a ppt file, so I've posted the link at the bottom of my post.

Relevant part:

"If the Momenergy transmitted and received from the FOAM is truly instantaneous, then a means is at hand to implement an instantaneous communications link to any-where and any-when in this universe.

Since this G/I communication link is via non-E&M means, and since normal metals and dielectrics do not shield G/I disturbances, these G/I communication links could be received underwater or on the other side of the world"

If this is true, doesn't it have implications for Fermi's paradox?

http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/Stair-Steps-to-Stars-5-6.ppt

Thanks. I still don't get it, it would still propagate at lightspeed as far as I can tell. (and how you make two UFGs 'resonant' to each other is an additional mystery to me).

Cuddihy:

My ideas on FTL communications have evolved since I authored that Stair-Steps to the Stars presentation some eight years ago.  Now think about driving a toroidal ring of dielectric that is bulk accelerated and driven with enough ac power (dP/dt) to evoke the M-E wormhole term that in turn creates a nano-to-micro OD wormhole at the center of this toroid with its destination in space and time at X & Y.  Next aim a modulated laser beam into your end of the wormhole while having your partner put a laser receiver at the other end of the wormhole.  You will note that just a few nano seconds is used for the laser beam to traverse the wormhole no matter where or when in the universe the wormhole exit and reciever may be placed. 

I vote for Mike Lorrey's Fermi Pardox solution D.  ("D) The use of active high powered radio wave transmissions by intelligent species is a short-lived phase of technological development lasting 100-200 years on average")  ... To be replaced by near instantaneous M-E wormhole comm links...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 02/23/2011 06:39 am
(and how you make two UFGs 'resonant' to each other is an additional mystery to me).

It's my understanding that the FCC regulates spark gap radio transmitters because they cause too much interference to more sophisticated communications systems, exactly because they don't use resonance. (EG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband#Regulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband#Regulation)).

Imagine some interstellar equivalent of the FCC coming here to investigate why we're suddenly broadcasting all that interference.



Now think about driving a toroidal ring of dielectric that is bulk accelerated and driven with enough ac power (dP/dt) to evoke the M-E wormhole term that in turn creates a nano-to-micro OD wormhole at the center of this toroid with its destination in space and time at X & Y.  Next aim a modulated laser beam into your end of the wormhole while having your partner put a laser receiver at the other end of the wormhole.  You will note that just a few nano seconds is used for the laser beam to traverse the wormhole no matter where or when in the universe the wormhole exit and reciever may be placed.

OK, that sounds more like point-to-point, ie equivalent to a fibre optic cable rather than broadcast.

But I don't understand how you determine where the far end of the wormhole comes out (X & Y).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 02/23/2011 06:59 am
I vote for Mike Lorrey's Fermi Pardox solution D.  ("D) The use of active high powered radio wave transmissions by intelligent species is a short-lived phase of technological development lasting 100-200 years on average")  ... To be replaced by near instantaneous M-E wormhole comm links...

On another thread, someone posted that recent modeling suggests high powered radio wave transmissions get lost in the background noise after just 3 to 4 lightyears. Which would:

a)  Solve Fermi's Paradox unless Alpha Centauri has inhabited planets, and

b)  Makes SETI a huge waste of time.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24157.msg694889#msg694889
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/23/2011 07:03 am
(and how you make two UFGs 'resonant' to each other is an additional mystery to me).

It's my understanding that the FCC regulates spark gap radio transmitters because they cause too much interference to more sophisticated communications systems, exactly because they don't use resonance. (EG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband#Regulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband#Regulation)).

Imagine some interstellar equivalent of the FCC coming here to investigate why we're suddenly broadcasting all that interference.



Now think about driving a toroidal ring of dielectric that is bulk accelerated and driven with enough ac power (dP/dt) to evoke the M-E wormhole term that in turn creates a nano-to-micro OD wormhole at the center of this toroid with its destination in space and time at X & Y.  Next aim a modulated laser beam into your end of the wormhole while having your partner put a laser receiver at the other end of the wormhole.  You will note that just a few nano seconds is used for the laser beam to traverse the wormhole no matter where or when in the universe the wormhole exit and reciever may be placed.

OK, that sounds more like point-to-point, ie equivalent to a fibre optic cable rather than broadcast.

But I don't understand how you determine where the far end of the wormhole comes out (X & Y).

cheers, Martin

Well the simple answer to what determines the far end is that you have to go out *there* and set up another stargate where you want the far end to be.

However, lets imagine that alien cultures develop much like current futurists project our own culture will develop: some time in the 21st or 22nd centuries, most of our species will become either fully integrated into an information infrastructure (i.e. augmented intelligence) or fully uploaded (i.e. becoming post-human) or replaced with AI offspring, or a combination of these three options.

Assuming this projection is typical of technological civilizations that are able to avoid self-destruction due to nuclear warfare, exhaustion of natural resources, or excessive toxic pollution, and assuming that development of M-E based wormhole stargates is also typical, then there should be stargate based GAN (Galactic Area Network) routers in every star system that has evolved to such a level of technology, which we should be able to tie into as soon as we develop our own stargate GAN router technology. As soon as we create a M-E generated wormhole on our end, then that wormhole should find a connection somewhere else, and we should immediately start seeing a rather large torrent of data coming through it.

Some of this data may be malicious data seeking to hack our own IT infrastructure, either to take control of our information civilization, or to destroy it. For this reason, whoever develops this technology had better isolate it physically within a shielded envelope, if not entirely *away* from Earth to utilize light speed latency as an insulation.

(Greg Egan's novel Accelerando is a good portrayal of some features of this threat.)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 02/23/2011 07:34 am
Now think about driving a toroidal ring of dielectric that is bulk accelerated and driven with enough ac power (dP/dt) to evoke the M-E wormhole term that in turn creates a nano-to-micro OD wormhole at the center of this toroid with its destination in space and time at X & Y.  Next aim a modulated laser beam into your end of the wormhole while having your partner put a laser receiver at the other end of the wormhole.  You will note that just a few nano seconds is used for the laser beam to traverse the wormhole no matter where or when in the universe the wormhole exit and reciever may be placed.

OK, that sounds more like point-to-point, ie equivalent to a fibre optic cable rather than broadcast.

But I don't understand how you determine where the far end of the wormhole comes out (X & Y).

cheers, Martin

Well the simple answer to what determines the far end is that you have to go out *there* and set up another stargate where you want the far end to be.

No, it's clear that the wormhole is created with the location of the far end somehow "specified" ("X & Y"): "M-E ... creates a ... wormhole ... with its destination in space and time at X & Y. Next ..."



However, lets imagine that alien cultures develop much like current futurists project our own culture will develop: some time in the 21st or 22nd centuries <snip>

(Greg Egan's novel Accelerando is a good portrayal of some features of this threat.)

Yeah, recognised the book as I was reading your comment. Good book, BTW.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/23/2011 01:35 pm
All:

Below is a response from Jim W. on 93143's 02/22/2011 comment about a local M-E device coupling with the FOAM:

93143 observation's:

"The key question, I think, is this:  what is the thruster pushing on?  What is the relative velocity of the Far-Off Active Mass?  On Earth, if you drive a car you're pushing on the ground to go faster, and it's very efficient, but it's not over-unity because the ground is at a set reference velocity and doesn't move to help you along.  But if an M-E thruster is pushing on distant matter, there's no substantial difference between 0 km/s and 1 km/s, because the matter in the universe is flying all over the place.  And it seems to me that in order to achieve a measurable thrust efficiency, an M-E thruster would have to preferentially interact with matter near its own velocity.  Any way you slice it, the conditions seen by the thruster do not change markedly as the vehicle accelerates.  In other words, the ground moves with the car."

Woodward's comment:

"Paul,

Just a quick observation.  The reason why you need a local reaction mass in a Mach effect device is because it is the thing that is anchored in the distant matter that you push and pull off of.  It plays the role of the earth in the accelerating car analogy.  The thermal motion of distant matter doesn't have anything to do with the effects I think.

Best,

Jim"


I'm not sure I agree with Woodward on this one or not, but I'm willing to wait and see what the experimental data brings to the table first...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/23/2011 02:56 pm
(and how you make two UFGs 'resonant' to each other is an additional mystery to me).

It's my understanding that the FCC regulates spark gap radio transmitters because they cause too much interference to more sophisticated communications systems, exactly because they don't use resonance. (EG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband#Regulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband#Regulation)).

Imagine some interstellar equivalent of the FCC coming here to investigate why we're suddenly broadcasting all that interference.



Now think about driving a toroidal ring of dielectric that is bulk accelerated and driven with enough ac power (dP/dt) to evoke the M-E wormhole term that in turn creates a nano-to-micro OD wormhole at the center of this toroid with its destination in space and time at X & Y.  Next aim a modulated laser beam into your end of the wormhole while having your partner put a laser receiver at the other end of the wormhole.  You will note that just a few nano seconds is used for the laser beam to traverse the wormhole no matter where or when in the universe the wormhole exit and reciever may be placed.

OK, that sounds more like point-to-point, ie equivalent to a fibre optic cable rather than broadcast.

But I don't understand how you determine where the far end of the wormhole comes out (X & Y).

cheers, Martin

Martin:

Steering the exit port of a traversable wormhole has never been done before, so what I'm going to say next is just speculations on my part, but here goes.  If one were to build the M-E toroidal...whoops, spherical dielectric structure in geodetic like segments that are driven separately so as to be able to control the magnitude of the wormhole term being expressed in each segment, one could then hope that the end results of such a control system could direct the exit port of the wormhole to location X, Y, Z within a spherical zone around the wormhole generator.  This would be much like a phased array radar being able to direct an E&M beam over a surface area, but with the distance of the destination exit port being determined by the average strength of the evoked exotic G/I matter in each of the segments. 

As to how one is to be able to determine the time t coordinate of the exit port, I would have to guess that it would have to involve some form of AM and/or FM modulation of the G/I exotic matter amplitude and/or frequency being expressed in each segment, but one would have to go back to Einstein's GRT gravity field tensor equation to get a better handle on what needs to be done before diving off building anything along these lines...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 02/23/2011 04:52 pm


lol, it seems you wrote it directly to GoatGuy, expecting me to copy your answer and post there. Gee, you could cut me the trouble and post directly there, haha.



Sorry aceshigh, NextBigFuture does bad things to my IE. I try to stay away.

Chrome
http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/landing_chrome.html?hl=en

Firefox
http://www.getfirefox.net/


get rid of IE. You wont regret.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 02/23/2011 08:00 pm
First, I finally splurged and bought a copy of the Millis book "Frontiers of Propulsion Science". It look very interesting and seems to be the definitive discussion of all breakthrough physics concepts as they relate to space propulsion.

Second, I have a question about wormholes. Supposing you can make one in a lab, would it "punch through" on its own? Or would you just create two wormhole openings in the lab, then have to transport one opening by conventional means to the target destination to create the tunnel? Wormholes that punch through are obviously the more useful ones.

Thirdly, it seems to me the most plausible answer to the Fermi question is that we are alone (at least in the Milky Way).

The Kepler results actually suggest this. Although it has found many planets, even the Earth-sized ones found are much less dense than rocky planets. The preliminary data suggests that even small planets tend to be miniature gas or ice planets rather than rocky planets. If rocky planets are rare, complex life is rare as well.

Another explanation for Fermi's question is the emergence of Eukaryotes. This happened only once on Earth (suggesting its a rare event) and appears to be due to the Hydrogen Hypothesis of endosymbiosis, which is not an evolutionarily favored process, again suggesting that its a rare event. The emergence of the Eukaryote maybe a singular rare event.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/24/2011 04:00 pm
get rid of IE. You wont regret.

Just spent a while recreating a win2k machine with ie6, after my first major crash in 15 years.  No regrets.  Guess there's all sorts of room on the internets hiway.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/24/2011 04:09 pm
BAcking up to Fermi's Paradox for a sec.  There's another explanation.  If it takes as long as it has for our species to evolve out of the goo,  it takes about the same amount of time for the second, thrid, and so on species to evolve to the same level.  If we just happened to be first, or nearly first, with our current abilities, we couldn't even detect another species with similar technical abilities to our own, nor could they us.

In other words, the distant species that evolved the day before, or the day after we did, would look at the universe, and say, "where are they?"

And what about those intelligent civilizations who are walking upright but still living in caves, and looking at the night sky with wonder?  We can't see them and they can't see us.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 02/24/2011 11:55 pm
And what about those intelligent civilizations who are walking upright but still living in caves, and looking at the night sky with wonder?  We can't see them and they can't see us.

they should behave and wait for us to colonize them and use them as slaves!! Modern sports, bah! How about some fun with alien gladiators fighting to death? :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: truth is life on 02/25/2011 04:51 am
(Greg Egan's novel Accelerando is a good portrayal of some features of this threat.)

Accelerando is actually by Charlie Stross, not Greg Egan.

/nitpick

Quote from: kkattula
On another thread, someone posted that recent modeling suggests high powered radio wave transmissions get lost in the background noise after just 3 to 4 lightyears. Which would:

I thought SETI was actually assuming that already and was looking for non-stray transmissions, instead. Surely a tight beam aimed at nearby stars wouldn't get drowned out so quickly?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 02/25/2011 05:49 am
...
I thought SETI was actually assuming that already and was looking for non-stray transmissions, instead. Surely a tight beam aimed at nearby stars wouldn't get drowned out so quickly?

Well the example used in the calculator required some pretty big & powerful equipment to both send and detect a tight beam at 20 LY.

If the criteria now includes the alien civilization has to be making a massive effort to communicate, and is within say 100 LY, and has targeted our system, then there could be thousands in our galaxy, and we still wouldn't know.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/25/2011 06:34 am


Well the example used in the calculator required some pretty big & powerful equipment to both send and detect a tight beam at 20 LY.

If the criteria now includes the alien civilization has to be making a massive effort to communicate, and is within say 100 LY, and has targeted our system, then there could be thousands in our galaxy, and we still wouldn't know.

If this is really the case, then I'd probably agree with what you said earlier: SETI is a huge waste of time.

Also, some scientists believe the lack of evidence for Dyson spheres and mega-scale engineering is reason enough to discount the existence of advanced ET's in the galaxy. Well, if we consider the possibility of extracting energy from the zero-point field (what is Woodward's view on this, by the way?) or this gravinertial field which is potentially enormous, they would really have no reason to create something like a Dyson sphere. We can't rule out other potential sources of novel energy that we may not be aware of yet. It could also be that these megastructures may be hard to detect with current technology.

If Woodward's ideas pan out, perhaps we'll get some solid answers for these questions. Heck, this breakthrough might be the spark that initiates contact.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/25/2011 08:47 am
Dyson Spheres and other megastructures were made under the limitless growth paradigm where it looked like industrial economies were just going to keep on growing indefinitely - due to population growth. Europe and Japan show that that's not going to happen as a given. Our own civilisation will cap growth at 12 billion.

Advanced civilisations will do who knows what. They may just virtualise themselves and live in a small lump of computronium.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/25/2011 09:59 am
The Kepler results actually suggest this. Although it has found many planets, even the Earth-sized ones found are much less dense than rocky planets. The preliminary data suggests that even small planets tend to be miniature gas or ice planets rather than rocky planets. If rocky planets are rare, complex life is rare as well.

The Kepler data does not suggest that. Masses for the vast majority of planetary candidates have not been measured. From NASA's Kepler FAQ: http://kepler.nasa.gov/Science/about/ScientificGoals/expectedResults/

Quote
The Kepler Mission begins to collect data immediately after launch and checkout and begins to produce results in a progressive fashion shortly thereafter.

   1. The first results come in just a few months when the giant inner planets are seen, those with orbital periods of only a few days.
   2. Objects that are in Mercury-like orbits of a few months are detected within the first year.
   3. Earth-size planets in Earth-like orbits require nearly the full lifetime of the four year mission, although in some cases three transits are seen in just a little more than two years.

      Other results that require the full four years of data are:
   4. Planets as small as Mercury in short period orbits, which utilizes the addition of a dozens or more transits to be detectable; and
   5. The detection of giant-inner planets that do not transit the star but do periodically modulate the apparent brightness due to reflected light from the planet.

The Kepler mission would have a hard time detecting the Earth even if it was edge-on. It would have to observe two transits of a small diameter making a very small, rather brief dip across a very strong signal. How small a dip? I've been doing Zooniverse for a while and I still can't spot an Earth-sized planet in the simulated data. Plus it has to observe at least *three* transits to confirm a planet sighting.

Quote
Kepler launched in 2009, and the soonest we anticipate announcing an Earth-size planet orbiting a Sun-like star would be sometime in 2012-2013.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aero on 02/25/2011 02:33 pm
I doubt that Earth's moon would be observable by Kepler. ?? What would it take to find planets with massive moons?
(Assuming of course that Earth and Moon orbited some distant star.)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2011 03:09 pm

Thirdly, it seems to me the most plausible answer to the Fermi question is that we are alone (at least in the Milky Way).

The Kepler results actually suggest this. Although it has found many planets, even the Earth-sized ones found are much less dense than rocky planets. The preliminary data suggests that even small planets tend to be miniature gas or ice planets rather than rocky planets. If rocky planets are rare, complex life is rare as well.


There is a very controversial theory first proposed by retired NASA chemist Professor Oliver Manual that attempts to explain this by suggesting that the Sun and the planets are the end products of a supernova star explosion rather than a normal evolution star. So the theory goes the Sun is a Neutron Star core surrounded by a molten core of Iron topped up with a plasma of Hydrogen and Helium, make of that what you will !! ;)

http://www.thesunisiron.com/
http://www.omatumr.com/
http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html
http://www.omatumr.com/PapersArxiv.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 02/25/2011 04:34 pm
No, I'm not referring to Manual's theory at all.

I am referring to the Kepler-11 data. Kepler-11 is the system with the tightly packed planets, all of them around Earth-sized. The Kepler-11 system is the only system where the densities of the planets can be predicted within a reasonable range. The densities of these planets are all estimated to be significantly lighter than rocky planets. Also, Kepler has found mostly Neptune-sized as well, even though Earth-sized planets are clearly within the sensitivity limits of the instruments. Both of these findings suggest that rocky planets are rare.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Elmar_M on 02/25/2011 05:34 pm
Kurt9
Uhm, I dont think that your information is up to date:
According to this article on Next Big Future, Kepler has so far found 1200 planets among those are 68 in the size of earth x1.25 or smaller.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/kepler-telescope-related-what-is.html
Basically the idea is that there might be up to 500 million planets in the habitable zone in this galaxy (not all of them rocky or earth sized of course). But if only a small fraction of those are of habitable size and composition, you would still get a huge amount of habitable planets...
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/extrapolation-of-kepler-telescopes.html

Edit:
Why were the links in my message edited, hello? I am hereby editing them back. If you edit them, at least provide a reason!
I did not put THAT (dead) link into my message!
Anyway, I apologize for the dead link in my message that some joker thought he could edit in.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/25/2011 06:42 pm
Kurt9
Uhm, I dont think that your information is up to date:
According to this article on Next Big Future, Kepler has so far found 1200 planets among those are 68 in the size of earth x1.25 or smaller.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/kepler-telescope-related-what-is.html
Basically the idea is that there might be up to 500 million planets in the habitable zone in this galaxy (not all of them rocky or earth sized of course). But if only a small fraction of those are of habitable size and composition, you would still get a huge amount of habitable planets...
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/extrapolation-of-kepler-telescopes.html

Edit:
Why were the links in my message edited, hello? I am hereby editing them back. If you edit them, at least provide a reason!
I did not put THAT (dead) link into my message!
Anyway, I apologize for the dead link in my message that some joker thought he could edit in.

Astrophysicists also claim that rogue planets with tumultuous cores could sustain life. And let's not forget the billions of Jupiter-sized gas giants with several moons that could support life. The chances of us being alone are ridiculously slim, it seems.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Elmar_M on 02/25/2011 06:57 pm
Quote
Astrophysicists also claim that rogue planets with tumultuous cores could sustain life. And let's not forget the billions of Jupiter-sized gas giants with several moons that could support life. The chances of us being alone are ridiculously slim, it seems.

From the looks of it, in the range of 1:500 million...
I would say that are pretty good odds for not being allone.
The German Astrophysicist Harald Lesch (I recommend his shows on the Bayern TV- channels to everyone who speaks German!) had a good argument though, that I have not found a satisfying counter to so far (it is kinda related to Fermis paradox).
Lesch said in one of his shows that given the cosmic timescales and the dimension of the galaxy, if interstellar spacetravel is possible and intelligent life is not extremely rare, we should be surrounded by space traveling aliens. Unless we are the first and highest developed ones, where are they? A million years is nothing in the galactic timeframe. So it would be likely that there would be aliens that are technologically 1 million years ahead of us. One million years is a lot of time ot conquer the galaxy. Why arent they here yet?
I have no answer to this, honestly. Maybe they are not interested in earth. Maybe they decided to leave our planet allone for some reason...
As hard as I try, I can not counter him there.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/25/2011 07:29 pm


From the looks of it, in the range of 1:500 million...
I would say that are pretty good odds for not being allone.
The German Astrophysicist Harald Lesch (I recommend his shows on the Bayern TV- channels to everyone who speaks German!) had a good argument though, that I have not found a satisfying counter to so far (it is kinda related to Fermis paradox).
Lesch said in one of his shows that given the cosmic timescales and the dimension of the galaxy, if interstellar spacetravel is possible and intelligent life is not extremely rare, we should be surrounded by space traveling aliens. Unless we are the first and highest developed ones, where are they? A million years is nothing in the galactic timeframe. So it would be likely that there would be aliens that are technologically 1 million years ahead of us. One million years is a lot of time ot conquer the galaxy. Why arent they here yet?
I have no answer to this, honestly. Maybe they are not interested in earth. Maybe they decided to leave our planet allone for some reason...
As hard as I try, I can not counter him there.

That is essentially Fermi's paradox re-stated.

As to why they aren't here yet: why would they be?

I've always thought its kind of anthropocentric of us to assume that an arbitrarily advanced civilization would be interested in us. The suggestion that an alien race capable of building hyper-intelligent machines or Jupiter brains as is hypothesized by physicists (or better yet, civilizations who have successfully developed the M-E technology discussed in this thread that could possibly generate exotic matter) would come down to Earth and introduce themselves is laughable. We simply have nothing to offer them - they have everything they need. That doesn't mean they're not interested, but they would find ways of satisfying their curiosity without actually being seen or intruding. After all, we are talking about Type II-III civilizations that have survived for millions, perhaps billions of years. I'd wager they would have quite a bit of experience dealing with primitive civilizations such as our own.

Then there's also the possibility that they've already been here sometime in Earth's 4.5 billion year history. Or maybe some galactic event wiped out several of them. Or once a civilization experiences a technological singularity, they retreat into what John Smart calls "inner space". It's called a paradox for a reason - it's not easy to solve.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 02/25/2011 07:36 pm
I love this subject and I took part in it too, but maybe we should drop it, since its quite off-topic. Of course, if we can discover and use propellantless propulsion, there are implications on the question of aliens also using them, why they are not here, etc. But we should discuss that in other thread.

lets limit this thread to advanced propulsion concepts and its implication in human society only.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/25/2011 08:52 pm
I love this subject and I took part in it too, but maybe we should drop it, since its quite off-topic. Of course, if we can discover and use propellantless propulsion, there are implications on the question of aliens also using them, why they are not here, etc. But we should discuss that in other thread.

lets limit this thread to advanced propulsion concepts and its implication in human society only.

You're right. Back to the topic

Paul: I had a question directed at you but it got lost in the flood of comments a few pages back. Here it is again in case you missed it:

"This is unrelated to the discussion at hand but what does Woodward have to say about zero-point energy & the apparent magnitude of it?

Bernard Haisch & Garret Moddel released a patent in 2008 for "extracting energy from the vacuum" which has yielded some rather interesting experimental results (although still quite inconclusive.) If they do somehow manage to extract this energy (I highly doubt it), how would this be interpreted by Woodward's theory?"
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/25/2011 09:07 pm
I love this subject and I took part in it too, but maybe we should drop it, since its quite off-topic. Of course, if we can discover and use propellantless propulsion, there are implications on the question of aliens also using them, why they are not here, etc. But we should discuss that in other thread.

lets limit this thread to advanced propulsion concepts and its implication in human society only.

Folks:

I agree with AcesHigh that the discussion of habitual planets needs to be on a separate thread, but I'll make one parting comment on the topic that some of you may blanch at, but need to ponder when talking about the topic of are we alone in this galaxy?  The 5% of UFO reports that can NOT be explained away by conventional human controlled vehicles, Venus, Jupiter, swamp gas or just about any other mundane possibility you care to name.  And while you are at it, try to explain what that 1957 USAF RB-47 ECM crew were chasing for several hours...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/25/2011 09:12 pm
I love this subject and I took part in it too, but maybe we should drop it, since its quite off-topic. Of course, if we can discover and use propellantless propulsion, there are implications on the question of aliens also using them, why they are not here, etc. But we should discuss that in other thread.

lets limit this thread to advanced propulsion concepts and its implication in human society only.

You're right. Back to the topic

Paul: I had a question directed at you but it got lost in the flood of comments a few pages back. Here it is again in case you missed it:

"This is unrelated to the discussion at hand but what does Woodward have to say about zero-point energy & the apparent magnitude of it?

Bernard Haisch & Garret Moddel released a patent in 2008 for "extracting energy from the vacuum" which has yielded some rather interesting experimental results (although still quite inconclusive.) If they do somehow manage to extract this energy (I highly doubt it), how would this be interpreted by Woodward's theory?"

GeeGee:

Woodward is not at all fond of the ZPE field and he thinks that most of the effects attributed to it like the Casimir force can be explained by E&M charges in matierals interacting.  In otherwords, the vacuum per Woodward is a void with no energy content whatsoever.  Of coruse Jim has yet to explain the Dark Energy issue, but then again nobody else has either...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 02/25/2011 10:33 pm
I know its not popularly regarded here. But Extended Heim Theory does explain Dark Energy.

The Haisch and Moddel patent describes a method for extracting energy from the vacuum using MEMS devices of various designs. They even received $200k in funding from a Colorado organization to construct prototype devices. The MEMS devices proposed in the patent do not seem particularly difficult or expensive to fabricate using a commercial MEMS foundry or one of these university "nano-fabrication" facilities. I've not heard anything more about this since this funding announcement. I've noticed Earthtech has been very quiet the last couple of years.

In one of his papers, Woodward suggests that electromagnetic ZPE concepts are not compatible with GRT because they are not background independent.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/25/2011 11:26 pm
I know its not popularly regarded here. But Extended Heim Theory does explain Dark Energy.

The Haisch and Moddel patent describes a method for extracting energy from the vacuum using MEMS devices of various designs. They even received $200k in funding from a Colorado organization to construct prototype devices. The MEMS devices proposed in the patent do not seem particularly difficult or expensive to fabricate using a commercial MEMS foundry or one of these university "nano-fabrication" facilities. I've not heard anything more about this since this funding announcement. I've noticed Earthtech has been very quiet the last couple of years.

In one of his papers, Woodward suggests that electromagnetic ZPE concepts are not compatible with GRT because they are not background independent.

There actually have been some updates to the energy extraction device. In fact, the results of a recent experiment was given at the annual meeting of the society for scientific exploration last year.

http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/ZPE.html

Also, regarding Heim theory: I'm going to remain skeptical until some actual experiments are done.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/26/2011 12:33 am
I don't know if anyone saw this on the arXiv physics blog, but this is pretty interesting.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26436/

Now all that's required is some solid evidence of exotic matter.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 02/26/2011 12:58 am


Cuddihy:

My ideas on FTL communications have evolved since I authored that Stair-Steps to the Stars presentation some eight years ago.  Now think about driving a toroidal ring of dielectric that is bulk accelerated and driven with enough ac power (dP/dt) to evoke the M-E wormhole term that in turn creates a nano-to-micro OD wormhole at the center of this toroid with its destination in space and time at X & Y.  Next aim a modulated laser beam into your end of the wormhole while having your partner put a laser receiver at the other end of the wormhole.  You will note that just a few nano seconds is used for the laser beam to traverse the wormhole no matter where or when in the universe the wormhole exit and reciever may be placed. 

I vote for Mike Lorrey's Fermi Pardox solution D.  ("D) The use of active high powered radio wave transmissions by intelligent species is a short-lived phase of technological development lasting 100-200 years on average")  ... To be replaced by near instantaneous M-E wormhole comm links...

Its my understanding, from reading the "2004 flux capacitor" paper, that the dielectric material alone is not sufficient for this. You need the piezo-material to "rectify" the dielectric mass fluctuation, as well as the "reaction mass" that is made negative by the wormhole term of the equation. This suggests a three layer structure, as well as the electrodes for both the dielectric and the piezo layers.

Is this correct?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/26/2011 03:26 am


Cuddihy:

My ideas on FTL communications have evolved since I authored that Stair-Steps to the Stars presentation some eight years ago.  Now think about driving a toroidal ring of dielectric that is bulk accelerated and driven with enough ac power (dP/dt) to evoke the M-E wormhole term that in turn creates a nano-to-micro OD wormhole at the center of this toroid with its destination in space and time at X & Y.  Next aim a modulated laser beam into your end of the wormhole while having your partner put a laser receiver at the other end of the wormhole.  You will note that just a few nano seconds is used for the laser beam to traverse the wormhole no matter where or when in the universe the wormhole exit and reciever may be placed. 

I vote for Mike Lorrey's Fermi Pardox solution D.  ("D) The use of active high powered radio wave transmissions by intelligent species is a short-lived phase of technological development lasting 100-200 years on average")  ... To be replaced by near instantaneous M-E wormhole comm links...

Its my understanding, from reading the "2004 flux capacitor" paper, that the dielectric material alone is not sufficient for this. You need the piezo-material to "rectify" the dielectric mass fluctuation, as well as the "reaction mass" that is made negative by the wormhole term of the equation. This suggests a three layer structure, as well as the electrodes for both the dielectric and the piezo layers.

Is this correct?

How you want to bulk accelerate the dielectric is up to you.  A PZT stack is one such approach.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/26/2011 09:18 pm
It seems Nembo Buldrini is presenting a paper on the Mach Effect at this year's SPESIF


Title: Possible Mach Effects in Bodies Accelerated by Non-Uniform Magnetic Fields

Abstract. Transient mass fluctuations are predicted by Woodward in accelerated bodies which are subjected to a change of their internal energy. This sort of effects goes under the name of Mach effects. Proving their existence would lead to a relatively fast development of rapid space transportation systems. Several tests have been pursued by Woodward himself and others, the results being sometimes elusive and contrasting. The potential of this research field, however, justifies further investigation. Until now, the tests have been conducted using exclusively capacitors as means of energy storage, and the acceleration has been supplied by the Lorentz force or by a piezoelectric actuator. The present work explores the possibility to search for Mach effects in bodies subjected to impulsive forces caused by a non-uniform magnetic field. Such magnetic field would provide both the acceleration and the change in the internal energy of the body, required for the expression of Mach effects. It will be shown that an impulsive (bell shaped) force applied to a special sort of test body should produce an anomalous final speed of the body itself.  A qualitative analysis is  presented and a possible experimental setup is outlined.


http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF2011/AGENDA/Abstracts/14_Buldrini_abs.pdf


I wonder if he plans to carry out this experiment himself later this year?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 02/28/2011 01:11 am
I know its not popularly regarded here. But Extended Heim Theory does explain Dark Energy.

The Haisch and Moddel patent describes a method for extracting energy from the vacuum using MEMS devices of various designs. They even received $200k in funding from a Colorado organization to construct prototype devices. The MEMS devices proposed in the patent do not seem particularly difficult or expensive to fabricate using a commercial MEMS foundry or one of these university "nano-fabrication" facilities. I've not heard anything more about this since this funding announcement. I've noticed Earthtech has been very quiet the last couple of years.

In one of his papers, Woodward suggests that electromagnetic ZPE concepts are not compatible with GRT because they are not background independent.

There actually have been some updates to the energy extraction device. In fact, the results of a recent experiment was given at the annual meeting of the society for scientific exploration last year.

http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/ZPE.html

Also, regarding Heim theory: I'm going to remain skeptical until some actual experiments are done.

The EarthTech people have tried the experiment where they run Hydrogen gas between two casimer plates 100nm apart. They say they got a null result.

Yes, Heim Theory is an open question until someone actual does the suggested experiment. What is clear is that "bosonic coupling does not exist. Doing the "fermionic" coupling test requires the superconducting coil capable of generating a 30 Tesla magnetic field. It will be several years before this experiment can be performed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/28/2011 02:02 am
...
I thought SETI was actually assuming that already and was looking for non-stray transmissions, instead. Surely a tight beam aimed at nearby stars wouldn't get drowned out so quickly?

Well the example used in the calculator required some pretty big & powerful equipment to both send and detect a tight beam at 20 LY.

If the criteria now includes the alien civilization has to be making a massive effort to communicate, and is within say 100 LY, and has targeted our system, then there could be thousands in our galaxy, and we still wouldn't know.

Normal communications radio signals are rather broad beam and do die out after a dozen or two dozen light years. But there are narrow beam transmissions that sweep across a large area of the sky but focus all their power on a small patch at regular intervals, such as radars. The early warning radars used by NORAD, for instance.

Another thing to consider is electromagnetic and gravitational lensing. Jupiter's electromagnetic field should lense Earth's transmissions, and possibly amplify them by inductance as well. The Sun might do a similar thing.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/28/2011 02:10 am
Dyson Spheres and other megastructures were made under the limitless growth paradigm where it looked like industrial economies were just going to keep on growing indefinitely - due to population growth. Europe and Japan show that that's not going to happen as a given. Our own civilisation will cap growth at 12 billion.

Advanced civilisations will do who knows what. They may just virtualise themselves and live in a small lump of computronium.

Limitations on population growth do not imply a concurrent limitation on demand for computational resources. In fact, the more expensive it becomes to build and operate meat-ware computers (people) versus non-meatware, the faster the demand for computational resources will grow. Dyson spheres, matrioshka brains, etc are not about human overpopulation, they are about maximizing the capture of solar power from one's home star, with which to power computation.

Population growth on Earth is limited only because resources on Earth are limited: space, water, food, energy, etc. When you open the resource system, limitations on population growth are eliminated. That's the whole point of space colonization, or had you not gotten that point?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/28/2011 02:13 am

Thirdly, it seems to me the most plausible answer to the Fermi question is that we are alone (at least in the Milky Way).

The Kepler results actually suggest this. Although it has found many planets, even the Earth-sized ones found are much less dense than rocky planets. The preliminary data suggests that even small planets tend to be miniature gas or ice planets rather than rocky planets. If rocky planets are rare, complex life is rare as well.


There is a very controversial theory first proposed by retired NASA chemist Professor Oliver Manual that attempts to explain this by suggesting that the Sun and the planets are the end products of a supernova star explosion rather than a normal evolution star. So the theory goes the Sun is a Neutron Star core surrounded by a molten core of Iron topped up with a plasma of Hydrogen and Helium, make of that what you will !! ;)

http://www.thesunisiron.com/
http://www.omatumr.com/
http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html
http://www.omatumr.com/PapersArxiv.html


Manuel's theory is bunk. He's been drummed out of every serious scientific forum I've ever seen him appear on. He and some of his lackey's tried to spam up the Wattsupwiththat.com blog til he got told to take a hike for trying to hijack every thread with his bunk.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 02/28/2011 02:31 am
Dyson Spheres and other megastructures were made under the limitless growth paradigm where it looked like industrial economies were just going to keep on growing indefinitely - due to population growth. Europe and Japan show that that's not going to happen as a given. Our own civilisation will cap growth at 12 billion.

Advanced civilisations will do who knows what. They may just virtualise themselves and live in a small lump of computronium.

Limitations on population growth do not imply a concurrent limitation on demand for computational resources. In fact, the more expensive it becomes to build and operate meat-ware computers (people) versus non-meatware, the faster the demand for computational resources will grow. Dyson spheres, matrioshka brains, etc are not about human overpopulation, they are about maximizing the capture of solar power from one's home star, with which to power computation.

Population growth on Earth is limited only because resources on Earth are limited: space, water, food, energy, etc. When you open the resource system, limitations on population growth are eliminated. That's the whole point of space colonization, or had you not gotten that point?


not really. Population growth diminishes REGARDLESS of resources availability, because of a miriad of causes, mostly associated with increased productivity, women independence, etc. You could in fact say the countries most starved of resources are the ones with largest growth rates.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/28/2011 04:02 am
I have a question about FTL as it pertains to Woodward's theory:

If the wormhole term can generate truly exotic matter to create warp bubbles & wormholes...it still doesn't get around the issue of causality. The physicist motto for FTL is "Causality, Relativity, FTL: choose two." So even if we can generate wormholes, how are we supposed to walk through them without violating causality?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/28/2011 06:53 am
Dyson Spheres and other megastructures were made under the limitless growth paradigm where it looked like industrial economies were just going to keep on growing indefinitely - due to population growth. Europe and Japan show that that's not going to happen as a given. Our own civilisation will cap growth at 12 billion.

Advanced civilisations will do who knows what. They may just virtualise themselves and live in a small lump of computronium.

Limitations on population growth do not imply a concurrent limitation on demand for computational resources. In fact, the more expensive it becomes to build and operate meat-ware computers (people) versus non-meatware, the faster the demand for computational resources will grow. Dyson spheres, matrioshka brains, etc are not about human overpopulation, they are about maximizing the capture of solar power from one's home star, with which to power computation.

Population growth on Earth is limited only because resources on Earth are limited: space, water, food, energy, etc. When you open the resource system, limitations on population growth are eliminated. That's the whole point of space colonization, or had you not gotten that point?

I thought the whole point of space colonisation is to preserve the human species? Cornucopians argue that extraction technology will always improve, efficiency will always improve and that substitutes will be developed once the resource is completely exhausted. This also assumes that our current economic model continues. Efficiency could improve to the point where we all live in a lump of computronium powered by a few square kilometres of solar cells. When reality starts to fracture like that, time itself becomes a commodity and more "resources" are bought off in the cheapest way possible - processor time, because our perception of time has slowed.

If time and processor lag as an absolute remains a priority, then the computronium civilisation might just seek further and further breakthroughs and perhaps drop out of the universe as we know it.

Processor lag is an absolute, and to break through this barrier, an advanced civilisation might use wormhole technology, foaming spacetime bubbles within spacetime bubbles and drawing off G/I energy or some other energy source we can't postulate yet. This processor-civ need not even exist in normal space anymore. It might leverage future processor cycles. Why emit energy into space when you have total control of energy? Even create your own mini-universes to run off of?

The only thing certain about these "futures" is that they're going to be wrong. Futurists a hundred years ago never predicted the internet, yet they had early computational devices. The silence of the stars simply means that we still have much to learn in science and technology, and possibly as a culture.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/28/2011 06:59 am
Dyson Spheres and other megastructures were made under the limitless growth paradigm where it looked like industrial economies were just going to keep on growing indefinitely - due to population growth. Europe and Japan show that that's not going to happen as a given. Our own civilisation will cap growth at 12 billion.

Advanced civilisations will do who knows what. They may just virtualise themselves and live in a small lump of computronium.

Limitations on population growth do not imply a concurrent limitation on demand for computational resources. In fact, the more expensive it becomes to build and operate meat-ware computers (people) versus non-meatware, the faster the demand for computational resources will grow. Dyson spheres, matrioshka brains, etc are not about human overpopulation, they are about maximizing the capture of solar power from one's home star, with which to power computation.

Population growth on Earth is limited only because resources on Earth are limited: space, water, food, energy, etc. When you open the resource system, limitations on population growth are eliminated. That's the whole point of space colonization, or had you not gotten that point?


not really. Population growth diminishes REGARDLESS of resources availability, because of a miriad of causes, mostly associated with increased productivity, women independence, etc. You could in fact say the countries most starved of resources are the ones with largest growth rates.



He does however have a point. *We* might stop reproducing, but what about a hive species? A robot species? There might be some species too dumb or greedy to understand efficiency and prefer continual resource growth, eventually tearing apart the peaceful planets over which immortal* computronium monoliths sit watch.

I think those species might get an early visit from a relativistic bomb.

*Here's something else: we have no idea what an immortal human will do, let alone an immortal alien computronium society...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/28/2011 07:01 am
...
I thought SETI was actually assuming that already and was looking for non-stray transmissions, instead. Surely a tight beam aimed at nearby stars wouldn't get drowned out so quickly?

Well the example used in the calculator required some pretty big & powerful equipment to both send and detect a tight beam at 20 LY.

If the criteria now includes the alien civilization has to be making a massive effort to communicate, and is within say 100 LY, and has targeted our system, then there could be thousands in our galaxy, and we still wouldn't know.

Normal communications radio signals are rather broad beam and do die out after a dozen or two dozen light years. But there are narrow beam transmissions that sweep across a large area of the sky but focus all their power on a small patch at regular intervals, such as radars. The early warning radars used by NORAD, for instance.

Another thing to consider is electromagnetic and gravitational lensing. Jupiter's electromagnetic field should lense Earth's transmissions, and possibly amplify them by inductance as well. The Sun might do a similar thing.

So with even more transit surveys we might have an idea of which planets to look for? Still, that puts the odds of catching a civilisation like that at 1 in 200 but at least it gives a better idea than "point radio telescope at patch of sky and hope."

Anyway, (back on topic!!!) this thread has shown us that G/I opens up all sorts of possibilities. Why communicate with radio when a little wormhole will do the trick?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/28/2011 11:31 am
...
I thought SETI was actually assuming that already and was looking for non-stray transmissions, instead. Surely a tight beam aimed at nearby stars wouldn't get drowned out so quickly?

Well the example used in the calculator required some pretty big & powerful equipment to both send and detect a tight beam at 20 LY.

If the criteria now includes the alien civilization has to be making a massive effort to communicate, and is within say 100 LY, and has targeted our system, then there could be thousands in our galaxy, and we still wouldn't know.

Normal communications radio signals are rather broad beam and do die out after a dozen or two dozen light years. But there are narrow beam transmissions that sweep across a large area of the sky but focus all their power on a small patch at regular intervals, such as radars. The early warning radars used by NORAD, for instance.

Another thing to consider is electromagnetic and gravitational lensing. Jupiter's electromagnetic field should lense Earth's transmissions, and possibly amplify them by inductance as well. The Sun might do a similar thing.

So with even more transit surveys we might have an idea of which planets to look for? Still, that puts the odds of catching a civilisation like that at 1 in 200 but at least it gives a better idea than "point radio telescope at patch of sky and hope."

Anyway, (back on topic!!!) this thread has shown us that G/I opens up all sorts of possibilities. Why communicate with radio when a little wormhole will do the trick?

Quite right. The amount of energy to really punch a radio signal at interstellar distances other than for very narrow beams, like coherent light (another area that SETI needs to look at more) is far greater than what will be needed to operate a wormhole comm node, if Woodwards math is correct, and a much shorter latency, much MUCH shorter latency.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/28/2011 11:35 am
Dyson Spheres and other megastructures were made under the limitless growth paradigm where it looked like industrial economies were just going to keep on growing indefinitely - due to population growth. Europe and Japan show that that's not going to happen as a given. Our own civilisation will cap growth at 12 billion.

Advanced civilisations will do who knows what. They may just virtualise themselves and live in a small lump of computronium.

Limitations on population growth do not imply a concurrent limitation on demand for computational resources. In fact, the more expensive it becomes to build and operate meat-ware computers (people) versus non-meatware, the faster the demand for computational resources will grow. Dyson spheres, matrioshka brains, etc are not about human overpopulation, they are about maximizing the capture of solar power from one's home star, with which to power computation.

Population growth on Earth is limited only because resources on Earth are limited: space, water, food, energy, etc. When you open the resource system, limitations on population growth are eliminated. That's the whole point of space colonization, or had you not gotten that point?


not really. Population growth diminishes REGARDLESS of resources availability, because of a miriad of causes, mostly associated with increased productivity, women independence, etc. You could in fact say the countries most starved of resources are the ones with largest growth rates.



Not quite. In Western nations, we have artificial scarcity of resources that is created by statute: moratoriums on offshore drilling, public land put out of reach of miners and drillers, etc, zoning laws that create artificial scarcity in real estate use classes, building codes that create high cost barriers to entry for housing, etc etc etc. These regulatory created scarcities are reflected in the higher costs of living in these countries, the way in which families are unable to support themselves off one income, etc etc.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 02/28/2011 11:44 am
I have a question about FTL as it pertains to Woodward's theory:

If the wormhole term can generate truly exotic matter to create warp bubbles & wormholes...it still doesn't get around the issue of causality. The physicist motto for FTL is "Causality, Relativity, FTL: choose two." So even if we can generate wormholes, how are we supposed to walk through them without violating causality?


Theare are a number of discussions involved in this, including various theories of causality violation suppression. For instance, the energy required to make a wormhole linkage to a point in the past may rise rather asymptotically the closer the other end of the wormhole is to your starting point. So, for instance, if you want to make a wormhole that goes 1 year into the past, the closest the other end can be without consuming impossibly massive amounts of energy may be 1 light year, which, it turns out is the point in time when light emitted at that point reaches your point of origin.

A stargate or warp system may require a period of charging proportionate to the distance you are going to travel.

But FTL doesnt actually mean time travel per se. Claims that it does constitute a fundamental misunderstanding of relativity.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 02/28/2011 12:30 pm
Not quite. In Western nations, we have artificial scarcity of resources that is created by statute: moratoriums on offshore drilling, public land put out of reach of miners and drillers, etc, zoning laws that create artificial scarcity in real estate use classes, building codes that create high cost barriers to entry for housing, etc etc etc. These regulatory created scarcities are reflected in the higher costs of living in these countries, the way in which families are unable to support themselves off one income, etc etc.

I live in a 'western' nation that has an advanced economy, the second highest HDI (Human Develoment Index) in the world and consistently ranks in the top 5 for quality of life. Mining is booming, and houses are not that expensive, just the land in the big cities.

You can buy a decent house in a country town and easily support a family on one income. Yet most people still choose to live in big cities. And if not for immigration, population would be static or falling. The government actually pays families to have children, currently just over $5,000.

Even in developing countries, studies have shown that with the economic freedom of being able to work or run businesses, women tend to have much smaller families. It's mostly about security in old age. Whether you feel the need to have lots of children so that some will survive to support you, or can trust in society and personal savings to provide.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mrmandias on 02/28/2011 04:45 pm
not really. Population growth diminishes REGARDLESS of resources availability, because of a myriad of causes, mostly associated with increased productivity, women independence, etc. You could in fact say the countries most starved of resources are the ones with largest growth rates.



Absolutely true . . . for now. 

But the human race has never been in a prolonged period of wealth and therefore of voluntary low birth-rates before, because the low-birth rates groups got swamped.  Now the whole world is rich (relative to human history) and is getting richer. 


So what will happen?  Evolution will happen.  The grim tautology that only those who reproduce reproduce will happen, and the human race will become more philoprogenitive.

I could be wrong, of course, but we're in demographically unprecedented territory.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 03/01/2011 12:06 am
I would say that population growth will start again as humans live longer and longer. If very few people die, even a small birth rate can cause enourmous growth rate. In that case, yes, we will need a galactic empire because the population will skyrocket fast.

of course, on the other hand, we are not considering that its simpler to NOT reproduce, maybe turning off genes responsible for making humans WANT to have babies.

ANYWAY, we are again straying quite offtopic... this entire page has been about population growth and about SETI!!!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 03/01/2011 12:10 am

But FTL doesnt actually mean time travel per se. Claims that it does constitute a fundamental misunderstanding of relativity.

such as???

I would love to know, because I already lost more than one argument to physics smartasses that told me FTL means time travel to the past. I said "yes, but not if its FTL that are not really faster than light like a hypothetical tachyon, but ftl like "taking shortcuts" or "moving spacetime itself" (warp), etc.

he showed me an graph to prove I was wrong. Well, my knowledge was not deep enough to contradict him.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 03/01/2011 04:22 am
Have you read Paul Birch's paper (http://www.paulbirch.net/FasterThanLight.pdf) on the subject?  My GRT is pretty weak, but it sounded plausible last time I read it (which was a while back)...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 03/03/2011 09:03 pm
so... Next Big Future had an article on EM Drive (Tom Shawyer) and mr Goatguy, who never bothered coming here to discuss, again posted stuff against ME thrust,


Quote from: GoatGuy
Could we just hang on a moment?

At the bottom of this article, it says that YBCO type high-temperature materials aren't presently useful due to physics, and structural issues. Meanwhile, at the top of the clipping there's talk about [Q = 6.8E6] from a tin can full of stuff where the active material is (drumroll...) YBCO. Now what gives?

Further, looking carefully at the table of thrusts-versus-Qs ... what do I see?
              Q  THRUST UNITS µN/(KW*Q)
--------------- ------- ----- ---------
         50,000   0.315 N/kW       6.30
      6,800,000     222 N/kW      32.65
  5,000,000,000  31,500 N/kW       6.30
100,000,000,000 630,000 N/kW       6.30
In other words, from Q = 50K to 100G they're all 6.3 micronewtons per kilowatt per Q. Except the 6.8e6 new unit, which is substantially (about 5×) higher.

Well, OK - experimental results trump projections, I guess. Seems though that there is the same problem with this kind of device as those that I brought forth for the Woodward ME thruster (at least before it was admitted that it may well be more of a creeper than a thruster)

Curiously - and for not one reason that I can get my claws around - there are deratings for thrust based on the net motion of the device! Well, doesn't that just take cajunas!

See, here's the deal - if the device actually has a thrust that is (somehow!) dependent on velocity, then it should have thrust that varies per the diurnal cycle (since the "velocity" of it must be absolutely independent of the earth), and moreover, should demonstrate anisotropy of force output by direction that it is pointing. If there is anisotropy in thrust relative to pointing direction, time of day, day of year - then we have here the very first experimental device that breaks the chief tenant of general relativity, which is to say, the detection of velocity in space that is absolute, and not relative.

OR, if its "directionality" is indeed isotropic (not varying with direction or relative velocity, unlike the implications of the table) and frame invariant, then ... like the heated and extended discussion of the Mach Effect thruster, this device becomes a perpetual-motion device, or a greater-than-"unity" generator.

Indeed, assuming a device (like the one in the picture) that can generate something reasonable like 0.222N for 1 watt of input, then placing it at the perimeter of a 1 meter diameter wheel delivers
CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3 CASE 4 UNITS       COMMENT +EXTRA
------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ----------- ------
   0.5    1.0    1.5      2 m          diameter   
   0.3    0.5    0.8    1.0 m            radius   
  1.57   3.14   4.71   6.28 m / rev    radial V   
 0.222  0.222  0.222  0.222 N        real force   
   1.0    1.0    1.0    1.0 W       input power   
------ ------ ------ ------ -------         RPS  RPM
   0.3    0.5    0.8    1.0 J/s (W)        0.72   43
   0.3    0.7    1.0    1.4 J/s (W)        1.00   60
   0.5    1.0    1.5    2.0 J/s (W)        1.43   86
   0.7    1.4    2.1    2.8 J/s (W)        2.00  120
   1.0    2.0    3.0    4.0 J/s (W)        2.87  172
   1.7    3.5    5.2    7.0 J/s (W)        5.00  300
   3.5    7.0   10.5   13.9 J/s (W)       10.00  600
   5.2   10.5   15.7   20.9 J/s (W)       15.00  900
   7.0   13.9   20.9   27.9 J/s (W)       20.00 1,200
Which is to say, that a 1 meter diameter wheel above 1.43 RPS (86 RPM) the device will be producing a F × ω above the 1 watt input, which makes it a perpetual motion device. By 1200 RPM, it is producing some 14× the input energy.

We should therefore make it the centerpiece of all future energy production, as if these posted values are confirmed, it would represent the greatest discovery since the invention of the wheel. Perhaps since the taming of fire.

That last bit was a bit, but not really spoofing the issue.

It is this simple, straight physics that dooms the device to bald-assed fabrication and fiction, or demands a very, very concise explanation as to how it could possibly avoid either outrageous issues. (1) directional anisotropic thrust, or (2) trivial above unity energy generation.

Well, enough for now. It will be interesting to see how this shapes up.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 03/06/2011 04:09 am
I was reading an article (http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw83.html) written by John Cramer, and he mentioned the interesting implication of the Mach Effect that I hadn't considered before:

"Woodward's effect, as implemented in his measurements, produces a mass change of a few milligrams in a object that must have a mass on the order of a few grams. Therefore the fractional change in weight is 0.1% or less.

The question of burning interest to SF readers and writers is whether the weight reduction effect can be made large enough to produce actual lift against gravity. The answer appears to be yes. The weight reduction magnitude depends on the product of the mass variation and the acceleration applied to the varying mass by the piezoelectric motion device. The size of the mass variation depends on the amount of electric power flowing to the capacitor and on the frequency f of its charging current. The magnitude of the applied acceleration depends on the distance "stroke" of the piezoelectric motion device and on the square of the frequency (f2) at which it is operated. This means that the overall size of the weight reduction should grow as the third power of the driving frequency (f3).

Woodward's measurements at a frequency of about 10 kHz (a rather modest audio frequency) observed a weight change of about 1 part in 1000. Increasing the frequency by a factor of 20 to 200 kHz while holding the other variables fixed (if that is possible) should make the weight reduction considerably larger than the weight itself, therefore achieving lift. In other words, Woodward's effect, if it is real, should be usable as an antigravity device or a space drive, in the sense that these terms are normally used in science fiction."

This is actually the first time I've heard the mach effect being referenced  as anti-gravity as opposed to a thruster. If transient mass fluctuations exist and can be scaled up to several orders of magnitude, then I suppose it could generate an anti-gravity effect.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 03/06/2011 10:00 am
Curiously - and for not one reason that I can get my claws around - there are deratings for thrust based on the net motion of the device!

I'm sure I'd understood that EM drive produces less thrust under acceleration, not just motion.


Which is to say, that a 1 meter diameter wheel above 1.43 RPS (86 RPM) the device will be producing a F × ω above the 1 watt input, which makes it a perpetual motion device. By 1200 RPM, it is producing some 14× the input energy.

Not sure if the acceleration thing applies to circular motion, but if so it would suggest that you can't just keep thrusting as RPM's increase.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/07/2011 03:27 am
Not quite. In Western nations, we have artificial scarcity of resources that is created by statute: moratoriums on offshore drilling, public land put out of reach of miners and drillers, etc, zoning laws that create artificial scarcity in real estate use classes, building codes that create high cost barriers to entry for housing, etc etc etc. These regulatory created scarcities are reflected in the higher costs of living in these countries, the way in which families are unable to support themselves off one income, etc etc.

I live in a 'western' nation that has an advanced economy, the second highest HDI (Human Develoment Index) in the world and consistently ranks in the top 5 for quality of life. Mining is booming, and houses are not that expensive, just the land in the big cities.

You can buy a decent house in a country town and easily support a family on one income. Yet most people still choose to live in big cities. And if not for immigration, population would be static or falling. The government actually pays families to have children, currently just over $5,000.

Even in developing countries, studies have shown that with the economic freedom of being able to work or run businesses, women tend to have much smaller families. It's mostly about security in old age. Whether you feel the need to have lots of children so that some will survive to support you, or can trust in society and personal savings to provide.

This attitude that population growth always goes down is a shibboleth of the euro-internationalist/feminist left. It has, in fact, been found to be a faulty assumption in hispanic and islamic cultures. One reason that US population growth remains positive is that hispanics in the US are defying these sociologist assumptions.

Its been an assumption behind pushing for education of women in islamic countries, but has been found to be faulty there as well.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/07/2011 03:34 am

But FTL doesnt actually mean time travel per se. Claims that it does constitute a fundamental misunderstanding of relativity.

such as???

I would love to know, because I already lost more than one argument to physics smartasses that told me FTL means time travel to the past. I said "yes, but not if its FTL that are not really faster than light like a hypothetical tachyon, but ftl like "taking shortcuts" or "moving spacetime itself" (warp), etc.

he showed me an graph to prove I was wrong. Well, my knowledge was not deep enough to contradict him.

This is a common problem with people who think they understand relativity but dont.

The assumptions made are that since it takes 1 year per light year distance for light to travel from destination B to departure point A, that if you go to B from A instantly then you are going to emit photons there that wont be observed at A until x years from now, and therefore are in the past of point A, such that if you travelled back to A from B instantly immediately after travelling from A to B, that you would wind up x many years in the past of A.

This is false. The photons that are observed at A in the future of you arriving at B are in the past OF THAT FUTURE "A" TIMELINE BUT NOT THE PRESENT POINT IN TIME AT "A". This is easy to confuse and its basically a game of physics three card monte that some know-it-alls try to play to "prove" the impossibility of FTL. Once you see where they palmed the card, it becomes much clearer.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 03/15/2011 04:02 pm
Two papers being presented today at SPESIF at the University of Maryland on the Mach Effect

http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF2011/AGENDA/2011_Agenda.pdf

2:15PM Possible Mach Effects in Bodies Accelerated by Non-Uniform Magnetic Fields - Nembo Buldrini

2:45PM  Mach Effects: Recent Experimental Results - James F. Woodward
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 03/15/2011 05:42 pm
I hope somebody will film it and put on Youtube.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/16/2011 11:59 am
The discussions on the previous pages about population declines are hard to understand.  Seems like population is going up across the board, with pockets of decline here and there, largely for what I would call logistic reasons, eonomies, and stuff like that.

While perhaps the US white population is not growing as fast as the Hispanic US population, it is still growing.  Why are the highways so crowded?  Immigration? Wealth?  Or more people driving cars?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Elmar_M on 03/16/2011 01:20 pm
The discussions on the previous pages about population declines are hard to understand.  Seems like population is going up across the board, with pockets of decline here and there, largely for what I would call logistic reasons, eonomies, and stuff like that.

While perhaps the US white population is not growing as fast as the Hispanic US population, it is still growing.  Why are the highways so crowded?  Immigration? Wealth?  Or more people driving cars?

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

Mathematically, you need two children per woman in order to sustain the population over a longer period of time. However, due to some people dieing before reaching fertile age, you need more in the range of 2.1 to 2.2.
Almost all western countries have seen a decline in birthrates. Caucasians are struck most hard, with birth rates as low as 1.5  per women on average in the European Union. Some European countries have birth rates as low as 1.3. This means that their population is almost cut in half with every generation.
The US is the western country that is still closest to keeping its population at level with a fertility rate of 2.0. But even the US will see a small slow decline.
The population growth that you still observe in some of these countries, despite the decline in fertility rate is due to the following factors:
1. An increase in lifetime. People live longer, so the population decline takes longer to take effect. But it will become very dramatic once the baby boomer generation starts dieing. The effect of them retiring with fewer younger people to pay their pensions will already have an impact on economies and societies.
2. Immigration. Central Europe is particular has seen a large amount of immigration from southern, middle eastern and african countries with higher birth rates.
In any case, there is a signifficant shift in the origins of the population of these countries happening due to these factors.
The socio- economic impact of all this is hard to predict.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/16/2011 09:51 pm
The discussions on the previous pages about population declines are hard to understand.  Seems like population is going up across the board, with pockets of decline here and there, largely for what I would call logistic reasons, eonomies, and stuff like that.

While perhaps the US white population is not growing as fast as the Hispanic US population, it is still growing.  Why are the highways so crowded?  Immigration? Wealth?  Or more people driving cars?

European population growth is negative, same for Japan and every other industrialized western nation other than the US. The only reason the US has positive pop growth is immigration.

Highways are more crowded because the population of cars is increasing, AND, the "ring city" phenomenon causes commute times to increase, which also causes more traffic.

The ring city phenomenon is a function of building and zoning codes that encourage sprawl and development centered around use of the automobile as primary means of transportation. People increasingly live further away from their location of employment, and many wealthy local city communities seek to minimize their welfare burden by blocking construction of affordable housing, and blocking permits for "mother in law apartments", which forces many employees to find housing in more rural communities and make long commutes.

People also demand larger homes which requires more land (this is partly because people of the year 2000 are significantly taller and heavier than their great grand parents of 1900 or their grandparents of the 1950's, but also due to us having a lot more stuff due to our consumer culture, in the year 1950, there were no self-storage businesses in the entire US.)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: UncleMatt on 03/17/2011 12:31 pm
Not really interested in discussing population in this thread. Lets stay on topic here...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Elmar_M on 03/17/2011 12:34 pm
Not really interested in discussing population in this thread. Lets stay on topic here...
Agreed, but I just wanted to adress a question that was asked...
So has anybody heard anything about the presentation by Woodward?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/17/2011 09:02 pm
Not really interested in discussing population in this thread. Lets stay on topic here...
Agreed, but I just wanted to adress a question that was asked...
So has anybody heard anything about the presentation by Woodward?

No, I expect we wont get an update until he's done and back at his hotel or something, unless someone else has gone to SPESIF too. Jim isn't up on all the new fangled internet tech, he still uses a juno email account with a big BCC list...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 03/17/2011 09:02 pm

Agreed, but I just wanted to adress a question that was asked...
So has anybody heard anything about the presentation by Woodward?

Haven't heard anything about Woodward's presentation yet, but some interesting tidbits about Droscher & Hauser's presentation were posted on physorg forums.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=2910

"I am currently at SPESIF. Its been pretty good, got to hear from NIAC.

Professor Hauser gave his presentation this morning.

So far, the three sources as we all know (or have heard about at some point) that have been used to corroborate evidence of Heim theory are 1) Tajmar's rotating superconductor experiment, 2) Gravity probe B, 3) Grahm's experiment (some guy from an Australian institution who was unable to replicate Tajmar's results)


He reconciled the problems concerning the use of Gravity Probe B as a way to corroborate EHT. He cited the inherent problems in the experiment and noted it as"ill-conceived", however, even when accounting for these design problems, there is still a portion unaccounted for--which is where he claims EHT comes in.

He presented in a table the key differences between Tajmar's experiment and Grahm's experiment (which was unable to replicate Tajmar's results) and why those differences were apparent.

He concluded his lecture by suggesting that an axial field, or 'Heim experiment' be conductedto further developing/understanding Heim theory (maybe someone on this forum has access to the slideshow, but it should be available on the proceedings CD)

Hopefully I didn't butcher this explanation too badly, but that's what I took away from this."


Anyone know if Paul attended the conference?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/17/2011 09:28 pm
The results of Gravity Probe B are said by Woodward to also show proof of Mach's Principle. IMHO the data from that mission mean all things to all people.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/18/2011 12:53 pm
European population growth is negative, same for Japan and every other industrialized western nation other than the US. The only reason the US has positive pop growth is immigration.

I get that.  But isn't the world's population rising?  There are just pockets of low or no growth.  Not to get too off topic tho.

So why can't inertia be a property of matter?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 03/18/2011 01:20 pm
I can't find those beautiful PDF presentations about the current limitations of space propulsion. There were some future perspectives.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 03/18/2011 07:24 pm
But isn't the world's population rising?  There are just pockets of low or no growth.

There's about a 70-year lag built into the system.  You have to look at the demographics.

IIRC, last I heard Earth's human population was projected to peak at ~9B around the middle of the century, and then start to decline.


Sadly, I don't have anything on topic to say at the moment...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 03/19/2011 12:44 am
The Mach effect thread appears to be dead. Long live the Mach effect thread.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/19/2011 01:27 am
European population growth is negative, same for Japan and every other industrialized western nation other than the US. The only reason the US has positive pop growth is immigration.

I get that.  But isn't the world's population rising?  There are just pockets of low or no growth.  Not to get too off topic tho.

World population is rising, but the rate of rise is dropping, primarily due to the chinese one-child law. Even though the birth rate has dropped in china as a result, infant mortality is way down, and life expectancy continues to increase, both factors that cause population to rise even when birth rates drop. Population in China won't start dropping until those of childbearing age prior to the one-child law start reaching life expectancy.

Many countries with negative growth in population are either former Eastern Bloc countries.

While China has a 0.48% growth rate, this doesnt tell the whole story, because with the one child policy, the male to female gender split in births is running about 60/40, so future fertility to be expected would actually be 80% of what one would expect of a one child policy. In terms of total fertility (i.e. children born per female over the mothers life), china dropped from 154th to 227th between 2006 and 2009 alone, because pre-one-child policy mothers are starting to die off.

Quote

So why can't inertia be a property of matter?

Well, you have to explain what it is about matter in and of itself, that lets it resist acceleration without having any linkage to anything else.

The mass of an object distorts time-space as Einstein said, as some sort of explanation for why you can't simply push something along without resistance, but the time-space fabric concept doesnt really explain this, because if conservation of energy holds true, then the energy expended to push a mass against the hole of its own gravity well in one direction should likewise be recollected by the rebound of the time-space well behind the object as it rebounds, so there should be zero resistance, unless time-space itself doesn't like to be distorted, but the simple act of an object moving, conservation of momentum says that time-space should have zero resistance to being distorted.

So you are left with the mass itself conserving its momentum, but resisting acceleration without a linkage to anything else. Its arguable that this resistance to acceleration is its own sort of spooky action, or rather spooky inaction, like, imagine a helium balloon floating in the air, that resists you pushing against it without it having anything to push against to create that resistance. Push hard enough, and it does give resistance equivalent to wind resistance, because its banging against the air molecules it comes into contact with mechanically.

In a vacuum of space, though, an object has no obvious "air" to provide wind resistance. There are candidates: cosmic background radiation as an air of electromagnetic energy, the gravitational attraction of all Far-Off-Active-Mass in all directions, and of course there's the proverbial zero point field.

The FOAM resistance is an interesting case, imagine you have a geodesic ball. Each junction of legs in the shell constitutes a piece of FOAM, each FOAM has a gravitational influence on the piece of matter we are considering at the center of the ball. The matter at the center is linked to every junction in the shell by a rubber band, so it exists in a state of constant tension between all points around it, the rubber band representing the gravitational attraction of all the FOAM toward the matter in the center. If you try to accelerate the matter in one direction, you get a resistance from the FOAM in the opposite direction. This is inertia.

The matter exerts its own gravitational attraction toward all other matter, so time-space is more properly described as a 4 dimensional ocean of rubber bands connecting all matter to all other matter within its light cone.

If you are able to vary the mass of the matter at the center of the ball, when you move it in x+ direction versus x- direction, you wind up with a net transfer of momentum from the FOAM to the matter in the center. Thats the Mach Effect, term 1. Do it energetically enough to enough matter, and you'll get a resonance effect that creates a warp in the ocean of rubber bands. Thats Mach Effect term 2.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 03/19/2011 02:24 am
In spirit of keeping this thread alive,

It's just occurred to me that Woodward has been experimenting with his Mach Effect conjecture since the early 90's...is there some kind of technical hurdle that's making this effect difficult to reliably generate? After 15+ years, you would think we would have more to show for it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/19/2011 02:42 am
In spirit of keeping this thread alive,

It's just occurred to me that Woodward has been experimenting with his Mach Effect conjecture since the early 90's...is there some kind of technical hurdle that's making this effect difficult to reliably generate? After 15+ years, you would think we would have more to show for it.

Well it's not like he's operating on any grant money here. Its all being financed by his retirement salary, and hampered by his current health problems with his kidneys, etc.

As for "more to show for it", the level of effect we are seeing in the data to date is big enough that if we were instead measuring global warming, even the coal companies would agree its happening, and trillions of dollars would be budgeted to the problem. There are agenda driven reasons why certain entities deny the Mach Effect is real. It is more lucrative to make space launch as expensive as possible, or so they think, ignoring the fact that the automotive business has made far more money than the horse and buggy industry ever made. But not a single horse buggy maker ever successfully became an automobile manufacturer.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 03/19/2011 03:21 am
Anyone know if Paul attended the conference?

GeeGee:

Nope, I stayed home and I'm using the saved $1,500 by not going to the conference to continue work on my self contained battery powered ~1.9 MHz M-E/MLT test article test.  Hopefully I'll have some preliminary test results in hand by this summer.


Mike L.:

Paradigm breaking is tough work, even when we CAN float the M-E test article into the conference room...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 03/19/2011 02:28 pm

...ignoring the fact that the automotive business has made far more money than the horse and buggy industry ever made. But not a single horse buggy maker ever successfully became an automobile manufacturer.

Ah, almost all the early automobile manufacturers only produced the rolling chasis. Customers went to a coachbuilder for the body. The same people who previously built bodies for carriages.

So I expect the major aircraft manufacturers will happily swap turbofans (and possibly wings)  for M-E drives  and carry on building vehicles.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 03/21/2011 03:06 am

...ignoring the fact that the automotive business has made far more money than the horse and buggy industry ever made. But not a single horse buggy maker ever successfully became an automobile manufacturer.

Ah, almost all the early automobile manufacturers only produced the rolling chasis. Customers went to a coachbuilder for the body. The same people who previously built bodies for carriages.

So I expect the major aircraft manufacturers will happily swap turbofans (and possibly wings)  for M-E drives  and carry on building vehicles.

Maybe... but the loading is completely different. Unless a turbofan was needed to provide the electicity (actually not that unlikely), the shape would need to change, because the thrusters themselves would not distribute the loads the way the wing does. i.e. the thruster is a single "chunk" giving you lift... you pretty much would have to replace the wings with attachment to the thrusters in order to make the loading on the body work out.

Of course it never hurts to have a "backup" method of flying...which is probably why warpstar-1 looks like it is designed to return from orbit passively if needed..
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JasonAW3 on 03/21/2011 03:49 am
Pardon my butting in here, but going back to the energy issue, it sounds, in some ways, as though the energy being put into the system is also acting as a sort of 'eductor' power drawing additional power from vaccumn energy into the system to compensate for larger energy requirements as relativistic effects com into play.

     Being former Navy and having worked damage control, the concept of an eductor always fascinated me and I have always suspected that it may be possible to use a similar principle to draw energy from the quantum vaccumn.

     Of course I could be completely off base, if so, sorry I bugged you.  Just trying to clarify a point or two.

Jason
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 03/21/2011 11:42 am
Maybe... but the loading is completely different. Unless a turbofan was needed to provide the electicity (actually not that unlikely), the shape would need to change, because the thrusters themselves would not distribute the loads the way the wing does. i.e. the thruster is a single "chunk" giving you lift... you pretty much would have to replace the wings with attachment to the thrusters in order to make the loading on the body work out.

Of course it never hurts to have a "backup" method of flying...which is probably why warpstar-1 looks like it is designed to return from orbit passively if needed..

I wasn't imagining a 1:1 swap, merely that many of the requirements for an air or space craft will carry over. e.g.

Navigation
Communication
Control
Electrical Power
Pressurization
Safety
Passenger & baggage handling
etc
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 03/21/2011 02:47 pm
The most significant change that M-E thrusters would have on aircraft design is that they would allow for vertical take-off and landing, or at least short runway use. Planes would still have wings, however.

The other option for long distance flight is to have smaller wings and have the craft ascend mostly vertically and to flight at Mach 3 at 60 miles altitude to the destination. This makes Mach 3 travel easy and with no turbulence. Shorter flights, like from Seattle to SoCal would cruise at conventional altitudes (40,000 ft) but could take off and land vertically.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: D_Dom on 03/21/2011 03:30 pm
craft ascend mostly vertically and to flight at Mach 3 at 60 miles altitude to the destination. This makes Mach 3 travel easy and with no turbulence.

 Nice description, with my limited understanding of this technology I am struggling to see a path forward to these capabilities.
 My question is can anyone help with a design that results in an experimental vehicle, admittedly small scale, to demonstrate flight capability?
 I have been following this thread long enough to know a rechargeable toothbrush contains battery, power management and signal conditioning (suitable?) to construct an experiment. What shape should be designed and built? The toothbrush suggests a "rocket-like" shape but how/where to locate the capacitors? Would a small scale demonstrator be better off with a lifting body shape or possibly long glider type wings?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 03/21/2011 09:29 pm
As for "more to show for it", the level of effect we are seeing in the data to date is big enough that if we were instead measuring global warming, even the coal companies would agree its happening, and trillions of dollars would be budgeted to the problem. There are agenda driven reasons why certain entities deny the Mach Effect is real. It is more lucrative to make space launch as expensive as possible, or so they think, ignoring the fact that the automotive business has made far more money than the horse and buggy industry ever made. But not a single horse buggy maker ever successfully became an automobile manufacturer.

Well it's not just certain industries that deny the mach effect, it's also scientists. These are the people that need convincing if M-E physics is ever going to be taken seriously.

By the way, since this is the "Propellantless Field Propulsion" thread, perhaps this is the appropriate place to post up Hauser & Droscher's presentation on Extended Heim Theory that was posted on physforum:

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=AWEP51EV
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikorangester on 03/25/2011 03:07 am
In spirit of keeping this thread alive,

It's just occurred to me that Woodward has been experimenting with his Mach Effect conjecture since the early 90's...is there some kind of technical hurdle that's making this effect difficult to reliably generate? After 15+ years, you would think we would have more to show for it.

Well it's not like he's operating on any grant money here. Its all being financed by his retirement salary, and hampered by his current health problems with his kidneys, etc.

As for "more to show for it", the level of effect we are seeing in the data to date is big enough that if we were instead measuring global warming, even the coal companies would agree its happening, and trillions of dollars would be budgeted to the problem. There are agenda driven reasons why certain entities deny the Mach Effect is real. It is more lucrative to make space launch as expensive as possible, or so they think, ignoring the fact that the automotive business has made far more money than the horse and buggy industry ever made. But not a single horse buggy maker ever successfully became an automobile manufacturer.

You've hit the nail on the head. Excellent opinion. I wonder if NASA will die because of these vested interests.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 03/25/2011 04:42 pm
This is nonsense. The level of the observed effect is not an issue, the level of effect compared to calculated predictions and clear alternative explanations is. As is the extraordinary noise you have to sift through to see any "effect" at all. That is supposedly an artifact of the madnitude of the observed effect.

Just because climate "science" is dominated by agenda-driven folks with poor statistical skills and yes, bad science, does not validate ME experiments. The only thing that will validate woodward's ideas is if the observed effect can be increased in magnitude to the point that it clearly and convincingly demolishes alternative explanations.

Anything else is spitballing.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikorangester on 03/26/2011 02:48 am
This is nonsense. The level of the observed effect is not an issue, the level of effect compared to calculated predictions and clear alternative explanations is. As is the extraordinary noise you have to sift through to see any "effect" at all. That is supposedly an artifact of the madnitude of the observed effect.

Just because climate "science" is dominated by agenda-driven folks with poor statistical skills and yes, bad science, does not validate ME experiments. The only thing that will validate woodward's ideas is if the observed effect can be increased in magnitude to the point that it clearly and convincingly demolishes alternative explanations.

Anything else is spitballing.

I've come to the conclusion that statements such as these come from one of two camps.
1. Vested interest
2. Opinions without cause (the unknowlegeable?)

The first camp I feel is rational because they try to protect their 'engine', the one that makes them cash for as long as time exists - or so their short term rationality tells them - and its fair if one is part of a greater industry and one only a part of it. However it is irrational when if one looks at it from the point of view of other similar technologies of their time ie the steam engine against the combustion engine (I am sure they had their wags), or the gas light against the incandescent light bulb, or the myriad of other examples. What is required is more government investment in advanced technologies to help the industry along its way towards better technologies. If not, commercial industry will stay stuck in their pre-invested positions and will not move. By the way, the technology works and is showing to be more efficient than current technologies even though its in its infancy - a sign of a significantly better technology. Compare the IT industry of today to that of the 1970's. One is commercially viable and vibrant, the other only islands dotted on a government landscape.

The other camp, well they read what vested interest has to say and because the VI have invested so much in illiteracy, it seems believable.

As to the climate thing. All I need to do is look out my window and see how dirty my atmosphere has become. I recall being able to see the milky-way (only barely) when I was young. Now i would be lucky to see a handful of stars. Or what about having a look at  snap-shots of the Amazon jungle from the 70's till now. Not much left. What about depletion of the fish resources, depletion of bio-diversity etc etc. The list is endless.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 03/26/2011 06:06 pm
As to the climate thing. All I need to do is look out my window and see how dirty my atmosphere has become. I recall being able to see the milky-way (only barely) when I was young. Now i would be lucky to see a handful of stars.

You can't see CO2 or CH4, and particulates cause cooling...

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 03/26/2011 07:27 pm

I've come to the conclusion that statements such as these come from one of two camps.
1. Vested interest
2. Opinions without cause (the unknowlegeable?)

3. Knowledgeable yet unvested. I've read ALL the M-E literature over the last 4 years. Have you? I stick with this thread because of the hope that a way will be found to demonstrate that it is true, not in a hopeless effort to prevent progress.
Quote

What is required is more government investment in advanced technologies to help the industry along its way towards better technologies. If not, commercial industry will stay stuck in their pre-invested positions and will not move. By the way, the technology works and is showing to be more efficient than current technologies even though its in its infancy - a sign of a significantly better technology. Compare the IT industry of today to that of the 1970's. One is commercially viable and vibrant, the other only islands dotted on a government landscape.



This quote shows you are clueless on how markets and innovation work.

Quote

The other camp, well they read what vested interest has to say and because the VI have invested so much in illiteracy, it seems believable.

VI?
Quote

As to the climate thing. All I need to do is look out my window and see how dirty my atmosphere has become. I recall being able to see the milky-way (only barely) when I was young. Now i would be lucky to see a handful of stars. Or what about having a look at  snap-shots of the Amazon jungle from the 70's till now. Not much left. What about depletion of the fish resources, depletion of bio-diversity etc etc. The list is endless.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/26/2011 08:33 pm
Quote
Opinions without a cause.

Personally, I'm a rebel without a clue...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 03/26/2011 09:27 pm
I stick with this thread because of the hope that a way will be found to demonstrate that it is true, not in a hopeless effort to prevent progress.


Speaking of which...what's the main hurdle right now for making an M-E demonstrator; be it one floating over an air hockey table or the pendulum demonstration?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 03/26/2011 10:55 pm
I stick with this thread because of the hope that a way will be found to demonstrate that it is true, not in a hopeless effort to prevent progress.


Speaking of which...what's the main hurdle right now for making an M-E demonstrator; be it one floating over an air hockey table or the pendulum demonstration?

GeeGee:

Simple, daily distractions, the amount of lab work required overcoming the M-E skeptics' issues, but primarily the subtleties of the M-E physics as applied to real-world materials.  In other words if this was going to be easy, it would have already been done!  However my next contribution to this saga should come sometime this summer.  And Woodward continues to accumulate supporting M-E data with his on-going PZT-Stack weight loss experiments that are hopefully demonstrating the M-E wormhole term's existence.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikorangester on 03/27/2011 03:29 am

I've come to the conclusion that statements such as these come from one of two camps.
1. Vested interest
2. Opinions without cause (the unknowlegeable?)

3. Knowledgeable yet unvested. I've read ALL the M-E literature over the last 4 years. Have you? I stick with this thread because of the hope that a way will be found to demonstrate that it is true, not in a hopeless effort to prevent progress.
Quote

What is required is more government investment in advanced technologies to help the industry along its way towards better technologies. If not, commercial industry will stay stuck in their pre-invested positions and will not move. By the way, the technology works and is showing to be more efficient than current technologies even though its in its infancy - a sign of a significantly better technology. Compare the IT industry of today to that of the 1970's. One is commercially viable and vibrant, the other only islands dotted on a government landscape.



This quote shows you are incorrect on how markets and innovation work.

Quote

The other camp, well they read what vested interest has to say and because the VI have invested so much in illiteracy, it seems believable.

VI?
Quote

As to the climate thing. All I need to do is look out my window and see how dirty my atmosphere has become. I recall being able to see the milky-way (only barely) when I was young. Now i would be lucky to see a handful of stars. Or what about having a look at  snap-shots of the Amazon jungle from the 70's till now. Not much left. What about depletion of the fish resources, depletion of bio-diversity etc etc. The list is endless.

Well I've worked with industry for quite a few years now and I know for a fact that few if any commercial industries do private R&D without government support.

As to the proof of propellantless propulsion - check out www.emdrive.com . No need for more theory, it works in reality.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 03/27/2011 01:07 pm
What industry is that? Carbon sequestering?

This is the King Canute school of innovation--government orders research in an area, and so it advances!

Like their orders on MPG efficiency, toilet flush size, lightbulb technology, the main purpose of massive government r&d focus is massive market distortion
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 03/28/2011 05:37 am
what? EM Drive works in reality? Says who? The guys from STEORN?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/28/2011 08:29 pm
From the EMdrive website Flight Program:  They get 326mN/kW.  The chart that they show the nineteen test runs has most of the tests in about the 350 watt range, which tells me that they got about 326 times .35 equals 114mN of thrust.  That video of their thruster spinning the test article thru say ninety degrees of rotation on its friction free bearing purports to show that they are able to convert electrical energy to thrust, without expelling propellant.  You can see that the test article is mounted on a massive rack with an external power supply, which would add more mass, if you wanted to consider the emdrive as self contained.

One could compare 114mN of thrust with the 12.5MN thrust associated with the SRB.  OK.  That's a mite unfair.

So, to even up the comparison a bit, consider the Hall Effect thruster.  Per wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect_thruster , they report "Devices operating at 1.35 kW produce about 83 mN of thrust. "

Clearly, per the Emdrive claims, they are getting a bit more thrust per kW than a Hall Effect thruster, and that level of thrust seems to be useful, the way I read it.  But all of the boxes have to be checked, and today, the Emdrive is a very massive experimental unit, not a flight article, I would say.

I guess what they need to do is miniturize that sucker?  But if you search back in the depths of this thread (use the Print function to put the whole thread on the screen; search for shawyer, May of '09) my recollection is that it is thought that the theory for this device is flawed.  So what gives?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 03/28/2011 10:43 pm
When it comes to EMDrive there's only two possibilities:

* It doesn't work and the guy is a fraud or at least delusional
* It does work and the guy is so incompetent that he can't even raise the capital to make a flight article

Either way, nothing is going to result from it.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikorangester on 03/29/2011 03:12 am
When it comes to EMDrive there's only two possibilities:

* It doesn't work and the guy is a fraud or at least delusional
* It does work and the guy is so incompetent that he can't even raise the capital to make a flight article

Either way, nothing is going to result from it.



Hence one knows when there is someone with a vested interest in denouncing what is clearly the path to space. Emdrive is a working system. Anyone who had put even a little thought as to why it works would agree. The experiment more importantly proves that it works. And even NASA agrees that it works.

Nothing will result if the people selling rocket technology or those wanting a limited life for satellites get their way. But it would be a step backwards for all of us, not only those in the space industry. Fortunately the Chinese see it as an advantage and are doing R&D on it. Furthermore, they seem to be strongly supported by their space enthusiast. I guess their space industry is not as developed as the one in the US?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 03/29/2011 03:31 am
The experiment more importantly proves that it works. And even NASA agrees that it works.

Ignoring the fact that you're simply wrong for a moment, so what if it has?

Do you think the millions to billions of dollars required to make this functional are going to start flowing just because of a lab demonstration?

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikorangester on 03/29/2011 09:12 am
The experiment more importantly proves that it works. And even NASA agrees that it works.

Ignoring the fact that you're simply wrong for a moment, so what if it has?

Do you think the millions to billions of dollars required to make this functional are going to start flowing just because of a lab demonstration?



Thank God then that the space industry has some competition coming from other nations. Might open the pipes a bit
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Giovanni DS on 03/29/2011 12:40 pm
Ignoring the fact that you're simply wrong for a moment, so what if it has?

Do you think the millions to billions of dollars required to make this functional are going to start flowing just because of a lab demonstration?

Assuming that it works (and I am not positive about this), we would be talking about a *propellantless* propulsion system, money should start flowing as soon as possible because it could be a strategic technology.

Without this kind of breakthrough wasting money in "human space exploration" is simply pointless. Chemical rockets will bring you nowhere except a little beyond LEO regardless the amount of money spent. The better you can hope for is a flags and footprints mission on Mars and that is all.

Without a breakthrough money would be better spent here on Earth IMO, watching rockets is fun but it is in research that money should go.

Giovanni
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/29/2011 01:51 pm
Quote
Emdrive is a working system.

No, it is not.

There's several very good reasons why this is so.  First, there's no independent confirmation.  Second, the term "working system" is so broad as to be meaningless, and is readily dismissed.

So first:  OK, nobody else has done this, but is that because they can't or won't, or [cue dramatic music] they are being kept from demonstrating the validity of Shawyer's theory?  I know that there's all sorts of conspiracies out there, since I get the Illuminati newsletter regularly. So it's not like I don't have a soft spot for conspiracies.

One of the simplest explanations for the lack of funding for Emdrive is the conspiratorial one.  ATK, just to pick a rocket company completely at random, is not at all interested in competition, so I'd expect that their lobbyists would, if they thought it worth paying attention to, counsel lawmakers that Shawyer's work is untenable, and shouldn't be funded.  This shouldn't be difficult, since their rocket produces 12.5MN of thrust, and Shawyer's contraption, which isn't even a rocket, only several hundred mN of thrust.

It's hard for me to think that there's a "clear path to space" with this drive, and that Shawyer is some victim of a conspiracy.

But secondly:  What the farouk (pardon the Arabic) does "working system" mean?  In this case, nothing, I'd say.  If the "system" being described is a mechanism for slowly rotating large laboratory apparati on frictionless bearings, then I'd have to say without equivocation, that he's got a "working system".  But if "working sysworking sat stationkeeping thrust assembly, then no, it is not a working system.

There is not a logical chain of thought which starts with "Emdrive is not a working system" and ends with "therefore propellantless propulsion will never be made a reality".  Which is a roundabout way of saying, don't blame me; I'm not holding anybody back; but at the same time, nobody's "proved" anything yet. 

If a system can be found which converts electrical energy directly into forward momentum without expelling mass, that would be a good thing for spaceflight.  And a pretty major discovery in and of itself.  Worthy of a Nobel prize, after the discovery has been proven, not before.  Which is unlike their criteria for the Peace prize, whose current holder has been actively leading two wars, and has recently started another one.  But I digress.

I'd say that the experimental video which shows this device slowly rotating, without apparently pushing on anything, to be impressive in a lot of ways.  But if it said that "NASA agrees that it works", there would have to be a NASA citation proving that statement.  Will that statement be forthcoming?  'Cause I'm not going to give that statement any credit otherwise.  Also, I just watched a video.  Don't expect me to say that something has been proven on that basis.  'Cause I have no idea if he's proven anything or not.

Quote
Do you think the millions to billions of dollars required to make this functional are going to start flowing just because of a lab demonstration?

Well, uhhh, yeah.

Otherwise, I'd have to ask what is the point of lab demonstrations to funding agencies in the first place?

Which is not the same as saying that this particular demonstration was a demonstration to funding agencies.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikorangester on 03/30/2011 03:17 am
Whatever. The science is proven and it works. Hopefully they start perfecting it and Darpa may actually one day get their "transportation vehicle that can drive and fly"

(https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=be792877dbda574d29f703d3f6ca06d0&_cview=0)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 03/30/2011 06:46 am
repeat 100 times the phrase "the science is proven" and it will magically be proven!!!

I will believe when they produce a prototype that can accelerate in a liner, not circular, motion.

like one user in Youtube commented on the video of the EMDrive: "my washing machine can do this".
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 03/30/2011 07:47 am
Otherwise, I'd have to ask what is the point of lab demonstrations to funding agencies in the first place?

What indeed.. think about it, you have in your possession a revolutionary technology which flies in the face of not only conventional practice but also conventional physics.. do you a) tell everyone about it or b) keep it secret and tell only who you need to in order to make it practicable? 

(sidenote: If you chose "a" because you think your patents are going to protect you, then you don't understand how the patent system works).

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/30/2011 01:57 pm
There's nothing wrong with circular motion; that's what electric motors do.  Here on Earth, it is child's play to make "Things that Go!".  Without gravity, atmo or friction, it would be a different type of complexity.  They could probably rig up a battery of flywheels, and get them spinning at various speeds, and convert the angular momentum into forward momentum.

But I didn't take the emdrive video to postulate rotary motion only.  Certainly, linear thrust along the tangent to a circle results in, well, circular motion.  It's a tiny force; in order to even measure it, ya gotta use a friction-free bearing.  (And by friction free, I mean that the friction is, well, free.  Comes with the apparatus)  The experiment purports to have demonstrated some work, as narrowly defined in a thermodynamic sense.   A couple hundred mN's of thrust.  I keep forgetting; how much thrust has Woodward discovered or claimed?

The patent system in our country is broken, as witnessed by the patenting of genes of individual humans, taking what can only be called one of the most basic properties away from an individual.  But I digress.

Most members of the scientific group would not accept the term "whatever", a term that I probably overuse in the political realm, as the equivalent of the scientifically, narrowly defined term "proof".
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 03/31/2011 12:40 am
They could probably rig up a battery of flywheels, and get them spinning at various speeds, and convert the angular momentum into forward momentum.

Facepalm. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 03/31/2011 04:00 am
They could probably rig up a battery of flywheels, and get them spinning at various speeds, and convert the angular momentum into forward momentum.

Facepalm. 

Yeah, John, that doesnt work, the time averaged inertia cancels out. This is an experiment I actually did over a decade ago, with a couple different designs, one mechanical, one hydraulic. You can't extract momentum like you are describing unless the masses involved are varying their speeds at high percentages of light speed, where relativity causes mass variations.

This is basically how one of the terms in the Mach Effect equation works, with the electrons in the capacitors bulk mass varying due to relativity over the course of the charge/discharge cycle.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/31/2011 01:11 pm
They could probably rig up a battery of flywheels, and get them spinning at various speeds, and convert the angular momentum into forward momentum.

Facepalm. 

It took about 30 seconds to type that, and that time would represent the level of analysis as well.  It would not represent my hold on the opinion.  I keep trying to believe in the conversion of electrical energy to forward momentum.  The only way, according to my next 30 second analysis, that the M-E drive could work, would be if it were harnessing relativistic effects.

Please don't complain about the 30 second analysis intervals in this lone example, which is atypical for me, or I might complain about the power consumed to barely distinguish the claimed movement from the background noise, which other, more thorough analysts have also noticed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 03/31/2011 01:41 pm
...
I keep trying to believe in the conversion of electrical energy to forward momentum. 
...

What's belief got to do with it? I hope it works but I wait to see evidence, and practical application.

e.g. I don't believe my car works, I know it from experience.

Belief is only necessary to justify an emotional stance, when there is insufficient evidence.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/02/2011 01:12 pm
Having thought a bit more:  Gyroscopic ACS is widely used for satellites.  Is that active principle only angular momentum?  Which would mean that circular motion is only good on the surface of a planet, where gravity and friction provide that which must be pushed upon.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/03/2011 03:02 am
Having thought a bit more:  Gyroscopic ACS is widely used for satellites.  Is that active principle only angular momentum?  Which would mean that circular motion is only good on the surface of a planet, where gravity and friction provide that which must be pushed upon.

Satellites use gyroscopes only to provide signals to attitude control systems. A separate technology is that of the momentum wheel, which is like a gyroscope and is used to store angular momentum and translate it, so a spacecraft can roll/yaw/pitch without using thrusters (why momentum wheels aren't used on shuttle, dragon, etc rather than the thruster systems, I do not know). One example of its use is on Hubble, which can't use thrusters due to its long life in orbit as well as the need to keep the optics free of exhaust gasses. Momentum wheels are also useful for despinning satellites that are put into orbit by spin stabilized upper stages.

You can't use the momentum in momentum wheels to create linear thrust because the satellite isn't on a planetary surface, and it can't push against itself. Momentum wheels still obey laws of action and reaction (which is why they are often also called reaction wheels).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/03/2011 03:04 am
...
I keep trying to believe in the conversion of electrical energy to forward momentum. 
...

What's belief got to do with it? I hope it works but I wait to see evidence, and practical application.

e.g. I don't believe my car works, I know it from experience.

Belief is only necessary to justify an emotional stance, when there is insufficient evidence.

Conversely, I keep seeing evidence that it works, my disbelief is reserved for those who continue to deny that it works despite the evidence.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 04/03/2011 08:29 pm
I found this comment on physicsforums.com pertaining to Dennis Sciama:

"Note that linear frame-dragging works like inertia, in that a test object experiences a force proportional to its mass m if nearby objects are accelerating relative to it. It would be very neat if this could be extended so that when everything in the universe is accelerating relative to it with average acceleration a, it experiences a force exactly equal to ma. From the point of view of the rest of the universe, that force would then appear to be due to the inertia of the test object opposing its acceleration (in the opposite direction), and requires an equal and opposite force to maintain the acceleration. This is pointed out in Dennis Sciama's 1953 paper "On the Origin of Inertia". This idea is one of the possible simplifications that would arise from a gravity theory that satisfies Mach's Principle.

Unfortunately, it can be shown that in GR this "Sum for inertia" of the effects of the individual accelerations cannot exactly duplicate this effect, mainly because in GR the gravitational constant G is fixed, but the sum depends on the distribution of the masses of the universe and therefore cannot be fixed. This means that either this neat Mach's Principle model is wrong or GR is wrong. (I personally suspect that GR is an approximation which is very accurate at the solar system scale but very inaccurate at larger scales)."

Is this accurate? If Dennis Sciama's model is correct, then it invalidates GR? Can someone explain?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 04/03/2011 09:00 pm
.
Unfortunately, it can be shown that in GR this "Sum for inertia" of the effects of the individual accelerations cannot exactly duplicate this effect, mainly because in GR the gravitational constant G is fixed, but the sum depends on the distribution of the masses of the universe and therefore cannot be fixed. This means that either this neat Mach's Principle model is wrong or GR is wrong. (I personally suspect that GR is an approximation which is very accurate at the solar system scale but very inaccurate at larger scales)."

Is this accurate? If Dennis Sciama's model is correct, then it invalidates GR? Can someone explain?

Hard to say, I have no idea what explanation this comment is referring to by "it can be shown."

I think in Woodward's derivation that the statement "the sum depends on the distribution of the masses of the universe and therefore cannot be fixed" would be dismissed pretty easily -- in fact I think IIRC effectively the distribution of the masses in the universe is fixed, due to the increasing effect of the greater amount of mass at greater distances. So in other words, although it is NOT fixed, it is close enough for GR to see no difference.

In fact it's parallel to the argument that first-time viewers of ME theory often raise, that if inertia was gravitational in nature, you would see the effect of local masses (such as the earth, Jupiter, or the Sun,) very easily because they are so close. In fact Woodward shows via calculation that, counter-intuitively, the local masses actually have a 9-to-10 orders of magnitude smaller effect than the  "distant far-off active mass," (i.e. all other mass inside the observeable universe horizon), despite their much farther average distance, due to the (literally) overwhelming mass differential of the rest of the mass.

So basically from the viewpoint of any local mass, "G" is effectively fixed. There's just no way to observe a difference. So GR is valid even in an ME universe.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/04/2011 01:52 am
No way to observe the difference?  How useful a property is that?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 04/04/2011 03:52 am
No way to observe the difference?  How useful a property is that?

God: "I'm sorry, you want the Universe to be useful now, too?"  ;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 04/04/2011 04:41 am
http://www.angryflower.com/woodwa.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 04/04/2011 06:17 am


Hard to say, I have no idea what explanation this comment is referring to by "it can be shown."

I think in Woodward's derivation that the statement "the sum depends on the distribution of the masses of the universe and therefore cannot be fixed" would be dismissed pretty easily -- in fact I think IIRC effectively the distribution of the masses in the universe is fixed, due to the increasing effect of the greater amount of mass at greater distances. So in other words, although it is NOT fixed, it is close enough for GR to see no difference.

In fact it's parallel to the argument that first-time viewers of ME theory often raise, that if inertia was gravitational in nature, you would see the effect of local masses (such as the earth, Jupiter, or the Sun,) very easily because they are so close. In fact Woodward shows via calculation that, counter-intuitively, the local masses actually have a 9-to-10 orders of magnitude smaller effect than the  "distant far-off active mass," (i.e. all other mass inside the observeable universe horizon), despite their much farther average distance, due to the (literally) overwhelming mass differential of the rest of the mass.

So basically from the viewpoint of any local mass, "G" is effectively fixed. There's just no way to observe a difference. So GR is valid even in an ME universe.

Thanks. I wonder if this person is aware of Derek Raine's 1981 paper that Woodward often cites.

The same poster actually had a critique of Woodward's conjecture (keep in mind he does seem to support Sciama's origins of inertia):

"After reading the patent and some of the other material, in particular the paper "MACH’S PRINCIPLE, MASS FLUCTUATIONS, AND RAPID SPACETIME TRANSPORT" linked from Woodward's web site, I'm extremely sceptical.

In Special Relativity, all four components of four-momentum (that is, energy and linear momentum) are locally conserved at the microscopic level, with an equation of continuity. This also applies locally within GR, and is thought to apply on a larger scale too although there is some difficulty in describing this in GR because gravitational energy cannot be localized in a unique way.

It is certainly true that local conservation rules do NOT apply to rest mass, but Newton's law applies to total energy rather than rest mass, so this isn't relevant.

What may not be immediately clear is that this means that if energy is supplied to something by any means, regardless of whether it is via wires, pipes, axles, fields or whatever, then any change in energy or momentum must flow through that route.

For example, if you look up "dipole gravity" you'll find that many years ago Eue Jin Jeong had an idea that if you spin up a hemispherical object around its axis of symmetry, you will shift the center of mass slightly along the axis because of relativistic considerations. (This can be better illustrated by considering an axle with two wheels on it of the same mass but different radii, so one gets more rotational kinetic energy than the other as the rotation rate increases). It is true that the center of mass of the system shifts, but if you use Special Relativity to analyze the details of how the torque is applied through the axis, you will find that if the assembly were free to slide along its axis, it would shift to keep the center of mass in the same place, and a force has to be applied to prevent that from happening, so there is no overall shift of the center of mass. (However, Eue Jin Jeong has ignored this analysis and is now apparently trying to profit from this idea).

Similarly, I think Woodward must be ignoring some part of the energy or momentum flow to achieve his result. For example, it appears that he thinks that there is a loophole related to dm/dt terms in Newton's law. However, this isn't relevant, because the microscopic conservation of four-momentum is exact, and even if the calculations in difficult cases involve extra terms, these cancel out when you consider the flow of energy from one described system to another.

Similar ideas relating to unbalanced forces in sufficiently complex systems such as gyroscopes have been presented many times before (such as in the "Dean Drive" and ideas from Eric Laithwaite). In each case, a complex calculation appears to show unbalanced terms. However, as four-momentum is locally conserved, any such effect must be due to an incomplete or incorrect calculation, even if it is very difficult to find a specific error.

This means that if there is any possibility of some propellantless drive, it cannot arise from combining existing physical effects in a new complicated way, as all of those physical effects are known to be subject to the local conservation rules. It can only arise from new physics."

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/04/2011 09:38 am
I found this comment on physicsforums.com pertaining to Dennis Sciama:

"Note that linear frame-dragging works like inertia, in that a test object experiences a force proportional to its mass m if nearby objects are accelerating relative to it. It would be very neat if this could be extended so that when everything in the universe is accelerating relative to it with average acceleration a, it experiences a force exactly equal to ma. From the point of view of the rest of the universe, that force would then appear to be due to the inertia of the test object opposing its acceleration (in the opposite direction), and requires an equal and opposite force to maintain the acceleration. This is pointed out in Dennis Sciama's 1953 paper "On the Origin of Inertia". This idea is one of the possible simplifications that would arise from a gravity theory that satisfies Mach's Principle.

Unfortunately, it can be shown that in GR this "Sum for inertia" of the effects of the individual accelerations cannot exactly duplicate this effect, mainly because in GR the gravitational constant G is fixed, but the sum depends on the distribution of the masses of the universe and therefore cannot be fixed. This means that either this neat Mach's Principle model is wrong or GR is wrong. (I personally suspect that GR is an approximation which is very accurate at the solar system scale but very inaccurate at larger scales)."

Is this accurate? If Dennis Sciama's model is correct, then it invalidates GR? Can someone explain?

Doesnt invalidate GR< but if the constant G isn't fixed, and instead depends on the distribution of masses in the universe, then everything is fine. The important thing to understand is that from any given point in the universe, the distribution of mass around any chosen point averages out to a fairly constant value, i.e. there isn't more mass on one side of the universe than the other from any given point.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 04/04/2011 09:44 am
.
Unfortunately, it can be shown that in GR this "Sum for inertia" of the effects of the individual accelerations cannot exactly duplicate this effect, mainly because in GR the gravitational constant G is fixed, but the sum depends on the distribution of the masses of the universe and therefore cannot be fixed. This means that either this neat Mach's Principle model is wrong or GR is wrong. (I personally suspect that GR is an approximation which is very accurate at the solar system scale but very inaccurate at larger scales)."

Is this accurate? If Dennis Sciama's model is correct, then it invalidates GR? Can someone explain?

Hard to say, I have no idea what explanation this comment is referring to by "it can be shown."

I think in Woodward's derivation that the statement "the sum depends on the distribution of the masses of the universe and therefore cannot be fixed" would be dismissed pretty easily -- in fact I think IIRC effectively the distribution of the masses in the universe is fixed, due to the increasing effect of the greater amount of mass at greater distances. So in other words, although it is NOT fixed, it is close enough for GR to see no difference.

In fact it's parallel to the argument that first-time viewers of ME theory often raise, that if inertia was gravitational in nature, you would see the effect of local masses (such as the earth, Jupiter, or the Sun,) very easily because they are so close. In fact Woodward shows via calculation that, counter-intuitively, the local masses actually have a 9-to-10 orders of magnitude smaller effect than the  "distant far-off active mass," (i.e. all other mass inside the observeable universe horizon), despite their much farther average distance, due to the (literally) overwhelming mass differential of the rest of the mass.

So basically from the viewpoint of any local mass, "G" is effectively fixed. There's just no way to observe a difference. So GR is valid even in an ME universe.

Since inertia is due to gravity, it is easier to say that inertia is a general macro average resistance to acceleration by far off active mass, while we ALREADY see resistance to acceleration by local masses like the sun, earth, moon, jupiter, etc that is ALSO due to their gravity, but we correctly attribute that resistance to acceleration to their gravitational influence, otherwise known in the rocket equation as "gravitational losses".

The earth of course is the greatest gravitational attractor ON earths surface, but the moon imposes a tidal influence, as does the sun (about 1/3 of the moon's influence) as does Jupiter (I think about 1/100th or so of the Moon's influence, could be less).

This is why the three body problem is so difficult, though.

It would be interesting to compare two rocket launches, one when the moon is on the horizon, the other while it is overhead, with the same fuel mass and payload mass, to see what the orbital altitude winds up being. Do mission planners account for this already?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 04/05/2011 07:42 pm
http://www.angryflower.com/woodwa.html

Hilarious!

Captures the current 'state of the Mass fluctuation evidence' perfectly, no matter which side you come down on theoretically.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 04/23/2011 12:10 am
Food for thought ...

http://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/Guy%20Hottel%20Part%201%20of%201/view?searchterm=Guy+Hottel
http://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/Guy%20Hottel%20Part%201%20of%201/at_download/file
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 04/23/2011 04:17 am
http://www.angryflower.com/woodwa.html

Hilarious!

Captures the current 'state of the Mass fluctuation evidence' perfectly, no matter which side you come down on theoretically.

http://angryflower.com/experi.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 04/24/2011 09:57 pm
85 years ago, the same cartoon would be made depicting the traditionalists led by Einstein against the HERETICS of quantum mechanics like Heinsenberg, Bohr, etc.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: UncleMatt on 05/01/2011 03:03 am
It sure would be nice to have an update on efforts with the MLT thruster...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 05/01/2011 04:44 am
It sure would be nice to have an update on efforts with the MLT thruster...

Woodward is finalizing a paper on the most recent experiments using an older thruster design as part of the graduate work of one of his students...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 05/01/2011 07:09 pm

Woodward is finalizing a paper on the most recent experiments using an older thruster design as part of the graduate work of one of his students...


How recent is recent?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 05/02/2011 01:53 pm
I still think Woodward and his "followers" (like Paul March) should just drop any mention of propellantless propulsion.

this is a scientific dogma area. If they only investigated the mass fluctuation phenomena, etc, without ANY MENTION of propellantless propulsion, they would have much more support.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Giovanni DS on 05/02/2011 02:48 pm
Science and dogma in the same sentence?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 05/02/2011 03:02 pm
I still think Woodward and his "followers" (like Paul March) should just drop any mention of propellantless propulsion.

this is a scientific dogma area. If they only investigated the mass fluctuation phenomena, etc, without ANY MENTION of propellantless propulsion, they would have much more support.

It's too late for that. The best they can do now is continue experimentation and hope that the evidence becomes compelling enough for other scientists to take notice.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 05/03/2011 01:30 am
Science and dogma in the same sentence?

yes, and its quite common. Of course, scientific dogma IS bent after its pushed enough, but the resistance is high enough sometimes to novelties, that research into a given subject will run into a wall, simply because resources will not be available, careers can be destroyed, etc.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 05/03/2011 02:01 am
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Still waiting on that proof, and wanting it to be extraordinary.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 05/03/2011 02:05 am
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Still waiting on that proof, and wanting it to be extraordinary.

First of all, the quote is "extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence", not proof, and while it's a nifty soundbite, I think it is grossly overused.  Extraordinary claims require just as much evidence as any other claim.. by saying you demand more evidence for stuff you are skeptical about than you do for stuff that you've already accepted as fact then the problem is with you, not the person making the claim.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/03/2011 01:04 pm
And second of all, I thought that the quote was: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".   But I agree, in principle; that evidence should be exactly the same validity for both ordinary and extraordinary claims.   The "extraordinary" thing about the evidence would be slapping your forehead and going, "Why didn't I think of that?"  Or:  "It all seems so clear now..."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 05/03/2011 02:51 pm
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Still waiting on that proof, and wanting it to be extraordinary.

much of the evidence for quantum mechanics extraordinary claims only came much later...

also, how exactly can you provide extraordinary evidence for stuff that requires extraordinary money to make???



imagine if noone believed in the possibility of controlled net-gain fusion. There would be no money available to fusion projects and thus it wouldnt be proven.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 05/03/2011 08:35 pm
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Still waiting on that proof, and wanting it to be extraordinary.

What is an extraordinary claim, however? It is one that is in violation with current accepted physical theory. Mach Effect theory does not violate current accepted physical theory, it relies upon general relativity and has a valid published pedigree beyond Woodward going back through Sciama. Therefore, it is not an extraordinary claim. It remains such only to people who continue to think Newton is the be-all/end-all of physics.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 05/03/2011 10:14 pm
much of the evidence for quantum mechanics extraordinary claims only came much later...

Nonsense.. everything that came out of quantum mechanics was the result of experiments saying what we knew was wrong.  The double slit experiment is one you can do with polarizing filters on your kitchen top and trying to explain it before the era of quantum mechanics would have been quite a head scratch.  That's the most valuable form of evidence you can ever put forward, easily repeatable and unexplainable in the current framework. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 05/03/2011 11:14 pm
While I do disagree with the application of Carl Sagan's quote, I would say that many of us want to see better evidence for the effect. Scaling up thrust levels to the Newton range would do it for me.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 05/03/2011 11:21 pm
It wouldn't for me.. it might help though.. all you have to do is provide linear motion and sufficient description so others can reproduce the experiment.  Then we'll have an unexplained phenomena.  Higher thrust would mean you can more easily overcome friction.. then you wouldn't need rails or tethers or some other form of friction reducing apparatus.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 05/05/2011 01:10 am
much of the evidence for quantum mechanics extraordinary claims only came much later...

Nonsense.. everything that came out of quantum mechanics was the result of experiments saying what we knew was wrong.  The double slit experiment is one you can do with polarizing filters on your kitchen top and trying to explain it before the era of quantum mechanics would have been quite a head scratch.  That's the most valuable form of evidence you can ever put forward, easily repeatable and unexplainable in the current framework. 


yes, I wonder why there was such a feud between the classic physicists like Einstein with the likes Niels Bohr and others...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 05/05/2011 01:22 am
yes, I wonder why there was such a feud between the classic physicists like Einstein with the likes Niels Bohr and others...

They didn't like the explanations and figured there had to be better answers, but they never argued with the experimental results because, if you can reproduce them, they're the closest thing to facts.

But an engineer doesn't care if God plays dice with the universe.. an engineer (should) just want an equation that works reliably and can be used to do actual work.

Getting back to the point here, none of the proponents of propellantless propulsion have provided reproducible experiments that produce anything that makes people scratch their heads and say "how the heck does that work?"  The closest is an experiment that isn't accurately described and makes most people say "so what?  my washing machine does that."

Trying to come up with theories about the universe which may allow you to postulate on the existence of a technique which could be used to create a propellantless propulsion system is no doubt fun to some people, but until they have the aha moment and construct an experiment, they should be of no interest to an engineer.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 05/05/2011 03:19 am
The final results of the Gravity Probe B mission have been announced. The Geodetic effect has been measured within 0.2% of the theoretical prediction and the frame dragging only within 20% of the theoretical prediction. It was this last that was marred by problems with the probe.

In short, General Relativity is real as far as any theory can said to be real. This means that any "space drive" or FTL concept that does not fit with GR is spurious, which rules out most (not all) of the ZPE schemes.

That leaves only the Woodward-Mach effect and Extended Heim theory on the table.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/05/2011 01:35 pm
yes, I wonder why there was such a feud between the classic physicists like Einstein with the likes Niels Bohr and others...

They didn't like the explanations and figured there had to be better answers, but they never argued with the experimental results because, if you can reproduce them, they're the closest thing to facts. ...

I have read about the Copenhagen discussion, but can't recall quite what they disagreed upon.  Care to elaborate a bit?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 05/05/2011 02:52 pm
yes, I wonder why there was such a feud between the classic physicists like Einstein with the likes Niels Bohr and others...

They didn't like the explanations and figured there had to be better answers, but they never argued with the experimental results because, if you can reproduce them, they're the closest thing to facts. ...

I have read about the Copenhagen discussion, but can't recall quite what they disagreed upon.  Care to elaborate a bit?

may I suggest you this awesome documentary from the BBC? Its called The Atom and tells the story of the discovery of the Atom and the first years of quantum mechanics.

Episode 1: Clash of the Titans (60 min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF2XjZ816Dw

Episode 2: The Key To The Cosmos (60 min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocWRTaYLgkc

Episode 3: The Illusion of Reality (60 min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64yJbVqtfsg
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 05/13/2011 11:54 am
Here's some interesting article from 1986 about the so called "Ether"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v322/n6080/index.html
p.590
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v322/n6080/pdf/322590b0.pdf
Special relativity

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 05/16/2011 02:36 am
When is Woodward's paper on wormholes going to be published?

I've been reading a bit about them lately, and I've realized that unless you can somehow place the exit-mouth of a wormhole where you want (i.e. light years away) without the need to carry it, then it's going to be very tough to use them in the way we want.

Consider a starship carrying the exit-mouth of a wormhole heading towards Vega (25 light years away) at 0.999c with the entrance-mouth sitting somewhere in orbit. The mouth of the wormhole is being accelerated at relativistic speeds along with the crew, which means they're experiencing time dilation. Now from our perspective, it should take the crew 25 years to reach their destination, but the crew experiences only 3 months thanks to relativity. Since we have a wormhole to their ship, it appears that if we were to step through the entrance in orbit and into their ship, we would have time traveled 25 years into the future; and the crew would conversely be able to time travel 25 years into the past by simply walking in through their side of the wormhole. If quantum gravity allows wormholes and we one day achieve the ability to create them, I foresee immense difficulties in preventing closed timelike curves in cases where we just want a shortcut through space.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 05/16/2011 03:03 am
sigh, the day someone proposes an experiment that demonstrates a basic principle of worm holes you can claim that they might some day be feasible.. until then, they're just another item on the long long long list of things that are theoretically possible but we have no clue how to achieve. (not the least of which is teaching people to have reasonable expectations about science and technology).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 05/16/2011 05:18 am
sigh, the day someone proposes an experiment that demonstrates a basic principle of worm holes you can claim that they might some day be feasible.. until then, they're just another item on the long long long list of things that are theoretically possible but we have no clue how to achieve. (not the least of which is teaching people to have reasonable expectations about science and technology).


No where in my post did I say wormholes were feasible. I was speaking in completely hypothetical terms and noting that wormholes could be converted into time machines quite easily.

Why does this bother you? Is speculation not allowed here? Would you also sigh at the several hundred published papers on wormholes by people like Kip Thorne, who actually came up with the exact scenario I just mentioned?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 05/16/2011 05:28 am
Speculation that isn't based on experiment went out with Plato.. ironically, it too involved gravity (objects falling at equal rates regardless of mass is not a natural concept).  So yes, I do tell all those physicists who waste their time writing wormhole papers to get back to doing real work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/16/2011 01:30 pm
Quote from: GeeGee
(1) No where in my post did I say wormholes were feasible. I was speaking in completely hypothetical terms and noting that wormholes could be converted into time machines quite easily.

(2) Why does this bother you? Is speculation not allowed here? Would you also sigh at the (3) several hundred published papers on wormholes by people like Kip Thorne, who actually came up with the exact scenario I just mentioned?

(1) From my standpoint, yes, you did suggest wormholes were feasible.  "Consider a starship carrying the exit-mouth of a wormhole heading towards ..."  By my interpretation, you were not saying: "Consider the starship carrying an infeasible exit mouth of a wormhole".  Rather, you were saying, unless I'm totally incorrect in reading your sentence: "Consider the starship carrying a feasible exit mouth of a wormhole".  You don't have to mention the word "feasibility" in order for your comment to be interpreted as "feasible".

(2) This sort of speculation bothers me a bit, but it doesn't bother me all that much.  In case you're in the least bit interested in how I think, here's an analogy as to your speculation:  Consider the vacation I'd take with a million dollars.  Yes, it is "feasible" that I could suddenly get a million dollars, and take a fairly nice vacation.  Yet, my description of that speculative vacation has very little utility in the world.  By your own telling, this here wormhole promises "immense difficulties in preventing closed timelike curves", so it's utility seems pretty farfetched, without the experiment which addresses the issue somehow in the laboratory.  Therefore, I'd say, your speculation has the utility of my speculative vacation.

I usually don't speak up about this sort of thing, because I've noticed that my viewpoint on these speculative matters of physics, time, wormholes, starships, and so forth, has no appreciable effect on the quantity or quality of such speculations being raised and discussed to no end.

(3) Expressing the limits of my knowledge about the writers in this field, I know nothing about Mr. Thorne and his many papers.  Were my interests different, I would know more.  Were there to be a replicable, vetted experiment, which demonstrated an aspect of the theory he is working on, I would want to learn as much about the work as I could.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 05/16/2011 02:11 pm


(1) From my standpoint, yes, you did suggest wormholes were feasible.  "Consider a starship carrying the exit-mouth of a wormhole heading towards ..."  By my interpretation, you were not saying: "Consider the starship carrying an infeasible exit mouth of a wormhole".  Rather, you were saying, unless I'm totally incorrect in reading your sentence: "Consider the starship carrying a feasible exit mouth of a wormhole".  You don't have to mention the word "feasibility" in order for your comment to be interpreted as "feasible".

This does not make any sense. If you're proposing a thought experiment on wormholes, then of course you assume they're feasible in the context of that hypothetical scenario. I don't know how you can misinterpret this as meaning they are feasible in reality.

You do know what a thought experiment is, correct?

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

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 05/16/2011 07:37 pm
Sigh. feasible in the context of that hypothetical scenario, yes.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 05/16/2011 08:02 pm
When is Woodward's paper on wormholes going to be published?

I've been reading a bit about them lately, and I've realized that unless you can somehow place the exit-mouth of a wormhole where you want (i.e. light years away) without the need to carry it, then it's going to be very tough to use them in the way we want.

Consider a starship carrying the exit-mouth of a wormhole heading towards Vega (25 light years away) at 0.999c with the entrance-mouth sitting somewhere in orbit. The mouth of the wormhole is being accelerated at relativistic speeds along with the crew, which means they're experiencing time dilation. Now from our perspective, it should take the crew 25 years to reach their destination, but the crew experiences only 3 months thanks to relativity. Since we have a wormhole to their ship, it appears that if we were to step through the entrance in orbit and into their ship, we would have time traveled 25 years into the future; and the crew would conversely be able to time travel 25 years into the past by simply walking in through their side of the wormhole.

sorry, I dont follow why the crew would time travel 25 years in the past by walking through the wormhole.

the crew left Earth in 1st january 2100. They are reaching Vega in 2125. To them, only 3 months have passed at relativistic speeds, but for the low speed universe outside, it passed 25 years.

When they cross the Wormhole in their ship and appear back on Earth, they are in 2025, just like they would be in 2025 when their ship decelerated back to very low speeds to land on Vega.


edit: ok, I see the problem. For some reason (dont know WHICH reason) time is fixed between the two wormhole mouths (always the same on both mouths).

yes, if time is fixed on both mouths, there would be time travel (the crew would return to Earth march 2100).

I would imagine that if a wormhole mouth was just like a "portal" which you can see through, that if you had TWO clocks, each one at a different mouth, the crew inside the ship would see the clock at Earth, through the wormhole, moving incredibly fast (think of the movie Time Machine), while people on Earth would see everything inside the ship VERY slow.

Apparently, that is not correct. The clocks on both places would remain synchronized.


now, the question is WHY is time fixed in both mouths? Can anyone explain me? Thanks.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Moe Grills on 05/16/2011 08:09 pm
   Somebody mentioned time travel?  :)

It seems a smart guy named Stephen Hawking once wrote (I'm not quoting him verbatim) that if "time travel" were to be a fact in the future, we should see "tourists" from the future around TODAY.

Where are they? Hiding behind dark glasses, wearing hoodies,
and tapping away on their PC's?  :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 05/16/2011 08:13 pm
   Somebody mentioned time travel?  :)

It seems a smart guy named Stephen Hawking once wrote (I'm not quoting him verbatim) that if "time travel" were to be a fact in the future, we should see "tourists" from the future around TODAY.

Where are they? Hiding behind dark glasses, wearing hoodies,
and tapping away on their PC's?  :)

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_D3p20YNQVFI/TPd5GYT4NGI/AAAAAAAAAvI/agFgA4p1R2Y/s1600/FlyingSaucer.jpg)

I always thought those "greys" were too humanoid to have just originated in another planet.
 ;D
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 05/16/2011 08:26 pm
all of that time travel talk reminds me of this:


But FTL doesnt actually mean time travel per se. Claims that it does constitute a fundamental misunderstanding of relativity.

such as???

I would love to know, because I already lost more than one argument to physics smartasses that told me FTL means time travel to the past. I said "yes, but not if its FTL that are not really faster than light like a hypothetical tachyon, but ftl like "taking shortcuts" or "moving spacetime itself" (warp), etc.

he showed me an graph to prove I was wrong. Well, my knowledge was not deep enough to contradict him.

This is a common problem with people who think they understand relativity but dont.

The assumptions made are that since it takes 1 year per light year distance for light to travel from destination B to departure point A, that if you go to B from A instantly then you are going to emit photons there that wont be observed at A until x years from now, and therefore are in the past of point A, such that if you travelled back to A from B instantly immediately after travelling from A to B, that you would wind up x many years in the past of A.

This is false. The photons that are observed at A in the future of you arriving at B are in the past OF THAT FUTURE "A" TIMELINE BUT NOT THE PRESENT POINT IN TIME AT "A". This is easy to confuse and its basically a game of physics three card monte that some know-it-alls try to play to "prove" the impossibility of FTL. Once you see where they palmed the card, it becomes much clearer.


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 05/16/2011 10:34 pm
   Somebody mentioned time travel?  :)

It seems a smart guy named Stephen Hawking once wrote (I'm not quoting him verbatim) that if "time travel" were to be a fact in the future, we should see "tourists" from the future around TODAY.

Where are they? Hiding behind dark glasses, wearing hoodies,
and tapping away on their PC's?  :)

One more reason Hawking was wrong. Generally speaking, you can't travel with a time machine beyond the period of existence of the time machine itself, so, for instance, if I built one today, I couldn't travel back to yesterday, but people from my future would start coming out of it now.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 05/16/2011 10:57 pm


This is a common problem with people who think they understand relativity but dont.

The assumptions made are that since it takes 1 year per light year distance for light to travel from destination B to departure point A, that if you go to B from A instantly then you are going to emit photons there that wont be observed at A until x years from now, and therefore are in the past of point A, such that if you travelled back to A from B instantly immediately after travelling from A to B, that you would wind up x many years in the past of A.

This is false. The photons that are observed at A in the future of you arriving at B are in the past OF THAT FUTURE "A" TIMELINE BUT NOT THE PRESENT POINT IN TIME AT "A". This is easy to confuse and its basically a game of physics three card monte that some know-it-alls try to play to "prove" the impossibility of FTL. Once you see where they palmed the card, it becomes much clearer.

Either this is the case or its that physicists have a different definition of causality than the one we are all familiar with.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MarkZero on 05/17/2011 08:00 am
...

sorry, I dont follow why the crew would time travel 25 years in the past by walking through the wormhole.

the crew left Earth in 1st january 2100. They are reaching Vega in 2125. To them, only 3 months have passed at relativistic speeds, but for the low speed universe outside, it passed 25 years.

When they cross the Wormhole in their ship and appear back on Earth, they are in 2025, just like they would be in 2025 when their ship decelerated back to very low speeds to land on Vega.


edit: ok, I see the problem. For some reason (dont know WHICH reason) time is fixed between the two wormhole mouths (always the same on both mouths).

yes, if time is fixed on both mouths, there would be time travel (the crew would return to Earth march 2100).

I would imagine that if a wormhole mouth was just like a "portal" which you can see through, that if you had TWO clocks, each one at a different mouth, the crew inside the ship would see the clock at Earth, through the wormhole, moving incredibly fast (think of the movie Time Machine), while people on Earth would see everything inside the ship VERY slow.

Apparently, that is not correct. The clocks on both places would remain synchronized.


now, the question is WHY is time fixed in both mouths? Can anyone explain me? Thanks.

I have no explanation why time for the wormhole mouths would be fixed, only an additional question. If the time for a wormhole mouth is fixed, doesn't that make it impossible to travel through them, or actually even to observe them? I mean if time is fixed for the wormhole mouth, doesn't that mean it only exists in the instance it was created and not in the past or the future of that point in time. So after it's creation wouldn't the wormhole mouth seem to instantly disappear, so instantly in fact that it would not have the chance to emit anything that could be observed to see that it even was there?

Or, if time being fixed for a wormhole means that time in the wormhole has slowed down to a halt, wouldn't that mean that from the outside the wormhole looks just like a black hole because anything that gets inside it will literally take forever to get out, and so will never be seen again?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 05/17/2011 11:20 pm
when I said time is fixed, I meant, its fixed between the two mouths. A better word would be "synchronized".

meaning... two clocks, each one on one side of the wormhole, will display always the SAME time, even if one mouth of the wormhole is travelling near light speed.

of course, isnt it a possibility that you CANT move a wormhole mouth?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 05/23/2011 09:09 pm
New article by James Woodward at Centauri Dreams

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/24/2011 12:33 pm
New article by James Woodward at Centauri Dreams

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/

GeeGee:

Thanks for posting a pointer to Jim Wooddward's Centauri Dreams areticle.  I understand from Jim that there is more to come.

Best,
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 05/24/2011 02:04 pm
good thing you showed up StarDrive. These topics usually die when you stay away for long.

check out the topic at talk-polywell too...

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2215
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 05/24/2011 03:34 pm
Permanent link

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=18076
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/24/2011 06:01 pm
good thing you showed up StarDrive. These topics usually die when you stay away for long.

check out the topic at talk-polywell too...

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2215

All:

I see that Ron Stahl just made an insightful observation over at talk-polywell.  Good for him. 

Sorry for being gone for awhile from this site, but when I've nothing to say, or am too busy, I usually just lurk and leave the rest of you to your own devices.  My current activities revolve around supporting Jim Woodward's NIAC M-E proposals, building up a Houston based R&D Lab that will be investigating the type of gravitational phenomenon that Woodward, White and Brito have been looking into for a number of years now, and of course continuing the slow buildup at my home lab of my first self-contained, battery powered Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT), running at ~2.0 MHz.  This test article is about 80% complete and will be able to run for approximately 20 minutes between its Li-Poly battery charges.   First light on this test article should be late this summer, and I hope to see similar results as was seen in my MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles as reported in my STAIF-2006 paper.   As to all the rest of the speculations on this and other websites on this topic, follow the experimental data and let the theory fall where it may.

Best,
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 05/25/2011 12:47 am
Don't know if you guys caught this, but Woodward also presented at SSE (Society for Scientific Exploration)

http://www.scientificexploration.org/talks/29th_annual/29th_annual_woodward_machs_principle_propulsion_problem.html

Paul,

Has anyone shown interest in replicating Woodward's 2010 rotary experiment?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/25/2011 03:18 am
Don't know if you guys caught this, but Woodward also presented at SSE (Society for Scientific Exploration)

http://www.scientificexploration.org/talks/29th_annual/29th_annual_woodward_machs_principle_propulsion_problem.html

Paul,

Has anyone shown interest in replicating Woodward's 2010 rotary experiment?

Gee:

None that I know of.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 05/25/2011 03:26 am
Didn't he claim there was a bunch of different labs trying to replicate it?  One of them in China - oooohhh, China, things just got real!

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 05/25/2011 04:29 am
Didn't he claim there was a bunch of different labs trying to replicate it?  One of them in China - oooohhh, China, things just got real!



No. You're thinking of Roger Shawyer.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 05/25/2011 04:33 pm
Didn't he claim there was a bunch of different labs trying to replicate it?  One of them in China - oooohhh, China, things just got real!



you are confusing Roger Shawyer´s EM-Drive (Electromagnetic Drive) with Woodward´s ME-Drive (Mach Effect).

As far as I know, totally different principles and MUCH MORE theoretical work behind ME-Drive.

While this thread STARTED with EM-Drive discussions, most of it is about the ME-Drive.

You might want to give it a read. Star-Drive (Paul March) answered over a hundred different questions in this thread.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/05/2011 01:01 am
Didn't he claim there was a bunch of different labs trying to replicate it?  One of them in China - oooohhh, China, things just got real!



you are confusing Roger Shawyer´s EM-Drive (Electromagnetic Drive) with Woodward´s ME-Drive (Mach Effect).

As far as I know, totally different principles and MUCH MORE theoretical work behind ME-Drive.

While this thread STARTED with EM-Drive discussions, most of it is about the ME-Drive.

You might want to give it a read. Star-Drive (Paul March) answered over a hundred different questions in this thread.

All:

You might find the attached preliminary PowerPoint based report of interest from Dr. James F. Woodward on his last 9 months of experimental work as edited by me.  Dr. Woodward is now seeing consistent thrust signatures that are reversible in the 1.0 micro-Newton thrust range as captured using his ARC-Lite torque pendulum, which has a force resolution of ~0.05 micro-Newtons.  The thrust magnitude and direction output of these PZT stacks are very phase dependent, so as these devices had their drive frequency swept through their mechanical resonant frequency just below 60 kHz, several thrust reversals are observed due to the phase reversals also observed between the 1-omega mass fluctuation signal and the 2-omega force rectification signal that was injected directly or generated in the PZT stack by its nonlinear response to its 1-omega drive signal.  These M-E like forces are still very small, but they are now repeatable and appear to observe M-E scaling.

Best,

Paul March
Friendswood, TX
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: jimgagnon on 06/05/2011 05:29 pm
These M-E like forces are still very small, but they are now repeatable and appear to observe M-E scaling.

Excellent! Please let us all know when Dr. Woodward formally publishes his results. That's one paper that will go to the top of my reading list.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 06/06/2011 07:53 pm
Goatguy going at it again...this time going as far to say Paul is peddling hokum in one of his posts explaining how the M-E is not a perpetual motion machine.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/scaling-up-mach-effect-propulsion.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 06/06/2011 08:07 pm
I've read enough of the theory papers (the "Flux Capacitors" paper is the best) to understand that this concept does not violate conservation of momentum. GoatGuy may have other legitimate criticisms, but he's wrong on this point. In any case, it does not matter what GoatGuy says because if this theory is correct, Woodward and March will demonstrate such, hopefully in the next year.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/06/2011 08:08 pm
Goatguy going at it again...this time going as far to say Paul is peddling hokum in one of his posts explaining how the M-E is not a perpetual motion machine.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/scaling-up-mach-effect-propulsion.html

I'll repeat what I said over at Talk-Polywell:

"If GoatGuy has problems with the M-E derivation, he should address those perceived problems directly and show where they are at fault in a rebuttal paper in the peer reviewed journal that published Woodward's M-E paper. The M-E derivation is contained in Woodward's "Flux Capacitors and the Origins of Inertia" paper as published in the Foundations of Physics Journal.

See:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m442n70106j14012/

In the meantime the Woodward test team continues to develop and execute the experimental test program that is fleshing out the M-E conjecture."

I'll also append a portion of a comment from Ron Stahl also from Talk-polywell on this perpetual motion nonsense:

"When all the examples are said and done with, the simplest observation is, that it is this ability to alter the inertial mass of objects (on demand) that is at the core of all conservation violation arguments.  Once you grant Mach's Principle, that Matter gets its mass from gravity, and you grant Woodward's derivation results--that matter's mass can be temporarily fluctuated, you have a whole new set of rules to cope with.  You can't make the simplistic perpetual motion machine arguments that served for high school physics, because that physics presumes the mass of matter doesn't change."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 06/06/2011 11:31 pm
I hope those experiments one day get some noise cancellation so that you can actually measure something.

Scaling them up (or down) might help.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/07/2011 04:18 am
I hope those experiments one day get some noise cancellation so that you can actually measure something.

Scaling them up (or down) might help.


We hope to get back up to where I started this buiness back in 2004, see attached MLT results at 2.2 MHz, but this time in a hard vacuum with Faraday shield and battery powered.

Best, 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 06/10/2011 09:09 pm
"Paul451" over at NBF claimed the measured effect is most likely due to a vibrating spring inertia illusion. Have you guys tested for this?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/11/2011 04:19 am
"Paul451" over at NBF claimed the measured effect is most likely due to a vibrating spring inertia illusion. Have you guys tested for this?

GeeGee:

I believe you are talking about a Dean Drive or ratchet drive, correct?  I suppose it's always possible that some sort of viscoelastic response between the 60 KHz ultrasonically vibrating parts of the PZT stack flowing through the multiple mutiple-axis vibration isolation mounts placed between the PZT stack and the torque pendulum might be generating a thrust like response, especially at these micro-Newton thrust levels seen by Woodward and Mahood to date.  However, the recorded thrust output appears to be insensitive to these residual vibration levels observed at the Faraday shield mount or torque pendulum pivot with the accelerometers placed at these locations to look for this kind of effect.  And one would think that the observed thrust levels would have to track these vibration levels if the thrust signature had its origins in a viscoelastic ratcheting effect, but they don’t as is demonstrated by the ARC-Lite pendulum's forward minus reverse thrust plot appended to this post.  Of course the only real way to prove this observation beyond a shadow of doubt is to fly a self-contained and space qualified M-E device in free fall, turn it on, and see if it accelerates or not.  Currently we don't have the R&D budget to try this kind of experiment.

Best,   
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 06/12/2011 03:43 am
"Paul451" over at NBF claimed the measured effect is most likely due to a vibrating spring inertia illusion. Have you guys tested for this?
Currently we don't have the R&D budget to try this kind of experiment.

Best,   

I suppose then the only way to discard such vibrations as being ME effect is to create devices with stronger thrust. Of course, expensive, but much less than putting an ME device in space to test if it accelerates or not. There isnt much of an option here. If at stronger levels (milli newtons or a full newton) it maintains, not only it will be proved as budget will stop being a problem :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/12/2011 03:17 pm
"Paul451" over at NBF claimed the measured effect is most likely due to a vibrating spring inertia illusion. Have you guys tested for this?
Currently we don't have the R&D budget to try this kind of experiment.

Best,   

I suppose then the only way to discard such vibrations as being ME effect is to create devices with stronger thrust. Of course, expensive, but much less than putting an ME device in space to test if it accelerates or not. There isnt much of an option here. If at stronger levels (milli newtons or a full newton) it maintains, not only it will be proved as budget will stop being a problem :)

GeeGee:

Increasing the thrust levels of M-E based devices up to where my MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles were operating, i.e. in the 1.0 to 10.0 milli-Newton range would be a major step forward in proving the existence of the M-E, if performed under the more stringent test conditions already mentioned.  However, by using the M-E’s predicted thrust scaling rules, see attched slide for an example, that involve both input power magnitude and frequency effects, as demonstrated by the last 75 kHz to 45 kHz frequency sweep thrust data plot that I already supplied on this forum, allows one to filter out spurious phenomenon such as the proposed Dean Drive effect.  That is provided you are really trying to find and explain new phenomenon, instead of getting an ego trip out of maintaining the status-quo.  So in the end analysis, some of the M-E critics will use this kind of data to become convinced that the M-E is real and in need of development, but the majority of the critics will never be satisfied until we can float the M-E test article into the conference room.  And even then some will still claim it's a fraud or just magic trick because it doesn't fit their preconceived ideas of reality.  At that point though we don't care anymore what these critics think, for we will then be able to build my concept WarpStar Lunar and Mars transports, which has been my objective all along in this business.

Best,

Paul March
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 06/12/2011 07:41 pm
So in the end analysis, some of the M-E critics will use this kind of data to become convinced that the M-E is real and in need of development, but the majority of the critics will never be satisfied until we can float the M-E test article into the conference room.  And even then some will still claim it's a fraud or just magic trick because it doesn't fit their preconceived ideas of reality.  At that point though we don't care anymore what these critics think, for we will then be able to build my concept WarpStar Lunar and Mars transports, which has been my objective all along in this business.

Best,

Paul March

Hopefully you guys get sufficient evidence by next year to get peoples attention and begin replication attempts.

Also, regarding Sebtal and GoatGuy's claims of apparent second law violations over at NBF: has Woodward ever addressed this in any of his papers? I'm quite familiar with the conversation of momentum argument (which has been addressed and refuted by Woodward) made against the Woodward/Mach effect, but this is the first time I've heard of it breaking the second law of thermodynamics.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Joris on 06/12/2011 07:46 pm
Also, regarding Sebtal and GoatGuy's claims of apparent second law violations over at NBF: has Woodward ever addressed this in any of his papers? I'm quite familiar with the conversation of momentum argument (which has been addressed and refuted by Woodward) made against the Woodward/Mach effect, but this is the first time I've heard of it breaking the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics is not broken if you view the universe as a whole, instead of just a small portion. Which is required when you use the Mach-effect.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 06/12/2011 08:35 pm


The second law of thermodynamics is not broken if you view the universe as a whole, instead of just a small portion. Which is required when you use the Mach-effect.

Here is the gist of Sebtal's argument (responding to the claim that the M-E might decrease the overall temperature of the universe)

"The theory from a mathematical standpoint doesn't have a provision for this decrease in temperature. By all means, if you can show from the equations that cosmic temperature decreases, by all means, the theory is then at least compliant. But if the theory doesn't have that in, and we have to randomly assume that the cosmic temperature decreases, then the only thing we have to tell us how and why the cosmic temperature should change as a response to this flywheel is "it must do so for Woodwards theory to be correct", and of course, there is no requirement that Woodwards theory be correct. If there is no mechanism for this temeprature change to occur within the theory itself, then the theory is not compliant with the second law and is in it's present formulation wrong, in which case, there is no particular reason to think this device is possible."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 06/12/2011 10:27 pm
Nonsense, no theory is required in order to be valid to contain within it explanations for how every derivative question it raises is answered. Newton himself coildn't have passed that test.

How a woodward effect thruster transfers momentum, energy, or temperature is a derivative topic for future speculation once the effect is proven to exist, not a critical question to proving or disproving the existence of the effect. Science doesn't work that way. Otherwise Einstein would have had to prove how the cosmological constant works before SRT was accepted... And that obviously hasnt happened.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/13/2011 02:55 am
The second law of thermodynamics is not broken if you view the universe as a whole, instead of just a small portion. Which is required when you use the Mach-effect.
Here is the gist of Sebtal's argument (responding to the claim that the M-E might decrease the overall temperature of the universe) "The theory from a mathematical standpoint doesn't have a provision for this decrease in temperature. By all means, if you can show from the equations that cosmic temperature decreases, by all means, the theory is then at least compliant. But if the theory doesn't have that in, and we have to randomly assume that the cosmic temperature decreases, then the only thing we have to tell us how and why the cosmic temperature should change as a response to this flywheel is "it must do so for Woodwards theory to be correct", and of course, there is no requirement that Woodwards theory be correct. If there is no mechanism for this temeprature change to occur within the theory itself, then the theory is not compliant with the second law and is in it's present formulation wrong, in which case, there is no particular reason to think this device is possible."


GeeGee:

I don't think Dr. Woodward has formally addressed the possible thermodynamic issues surrounding the Mach-Effect (M-E) yet, especially for a speculation that I put forward over at the Talk-Polywell Forum, and why should he have?  Cuddihy is correct IMO about not having to defend every possible aspect of a conjecture before it can be taken seriously. You first prove that there is an interesting phenomenon worth investigating further and then take it one step at a time from there. IMO Woodward has come very close to that goal already, but your mileage may vary.

Best,
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/24/2011 03:28 am
Nonsense, no theory is required in order to be valid to contain within it explanations for how every derivative question it raises is answered. Newton himself coildn't have passed that test.

How a woodward effect thruster transfers momentum, energy, or temperature is a derivative topic for future speculation once the effect is proven to exist, not a critical question to proving or disproving the existence of the effect. Science doesn't work that way. Otherwise Einstein would have had to prove how the cosmological constant works before SRT was accepted... And that obviously hasnt happened.

All:

You might find the two attached data slides from Dr. Woodward's ARC-Lite Torque Pendulum PZT-Stack Frequency Sweep data runs from last week of interest.  This Faraday shielded test article can be rotated on the end of the torque pendulum's arm so its thrust vector can be pointed left or right, or up and down between data runs.  Subtracting the L-R and U-D data runs then provides a true differential thrust product that has to be due to the internal forces generated in this Faraday shielded test article, running in ~1x10^-3 Torr Vacuum level.  This is the best data set yet out of Woodward's shop that defends the existence of his M-E conjecture.  If Woodward can get the amplitude of the PZT-Stack's thrust output increased by another order of magnitude, he can start running input power verses thrust output scaling rules to see if the observed data matches the M-E conjecture predictions. 

BTW, increasing the force output by an order of magnitude will most likely entail increasing the 1-omega and 2-omega operating frequencies of Woodward's power amplifiers by at least an order of magnitude above his current power amp's 60 kHz -6 dB power roll-off.  We are currently looking for a pair of inexpensive, (less than $2k each) LF/HF 500W, 10 kHz-to-5.0 MHz or so wideband width Piezoelectric/Laser driver power amps to replace Woodward's two current Carvin Audio amps.  If anybody has a lead on such items please let us know the source of same.

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 06/24/2011 05:06 am
But that can barely lift a sheet of paper :(
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/24/2011 01:36 pm
But that can barely lift a sheet of paper :(

Sith:

You first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an effect is real.  This data just about does that.  Then you grow the effect as you come to better understand it.  If the bulk of the M-E conjecture is correct, increasing the operating frequency from 60 kHz up to say 600 kHz should increase the output of these types of PZT-Stack devices up to 100 times.  The trick is then to get the acoustics phasing correct in the stack so their reflections collectively add, instead of subtracting.

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 06/24/2011 02:05 pm
and to how much do you think the frequency can be increased? Mhz? Thz?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/24/2011 06:37 pm
and to how much do you think the frequency can be increased? Mhz? Thz?

AcesHigh:

I already know that MLTs can be made to work at 2-to-4 MHz.  Past that my estimates are that MLT's can be made to work up to ~50 MHz using lumped parameter circuits.  Then we will have to transistion to VHF/UHF stripline and/or resonant cavity like components that can maximize the B-field production in the MLT caps.  Assuming that the M-E conjecture's  predicted MLT cubic frequency scaling still holds, and with the same 10W of RF input power at 2.20 MHz while increasing the operating frequency up to say 30.0 MHz, my MLT-2004's 4 milli-Newton thrust ouput could ramp up by a factor of (30/2.2)^3 = 2,536 * 4.0 milli-Newton = 10.14 Newton.  There is an engineering trick needed to do this, but I won't bore you with the details until I know that it really works myself.

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 06/24/2011 07:16 pm
Quote
the B-field production in the MLT caps.  Assuming that the M-E conjecture's  predicted MLT cubic frequency scaling still holds

I wasn't aware that the scaling had been experimentally seen.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/25/2011 01:59 am
Quote
the B-field production in the MLT caps.  Assuming that the M-E conjecture's  predicted MLT cubic frequency scaling still holds

I wasn't aware that the scaling had been experimentally seen.

Cuddihy:

Dr. Woodward demonstrated cap voltage cubic scaling of the M-E force output years ago with his early MLT work.  What hasn't been directly demonstrated yet is the predicted cubic scaling of the thrust output with increasing frequency at least not by Woodward.  That's because all these M-E devices use alternating voltages and currents that have preferred operating frequencies, i.e., they are not broadband devices that can be tuned to frequency X, 2X, 4X, etc.  In other words a new unit has to be built for each new operating frequency, a feat that has been beyond our current resources to do.  We do have some indications though that the M-E’s predicted MLT cubic frequency scaling for the delta mass signature does occur when you compare Woodard’s ~50 kHz PZT stack at ~100W results with my MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz data at 10W.  This is demonstrated by the fact that the cubic frequency to thrust output scaling factor between these two bodies of work is (2,200 kHz / 50 kHz)^3 = 85,184  * 10W/100W = 8,184 * 1.0 uN at 50 kHz = 8,184 uN at 2.2 MHz, which is only a factor of two higher than observed in the MLT-2004 and a factor of eight in the Mach-2 MHz.  Considering the difference in these PZT=Stack and MLT test articles, that an amazingly close correlation, but it won’t be clinched until we can take a broadband MLT and run it at 2.0 MHz and 4.0 MHz with the same input power and see if the thrust increases by the 2^3 = 8 factor. 

Oh wait minute, I may actually have performed this test when I ran the Faraday shielded Mach-2MHz at 2.15 MHz and then at 3.8 MHz during its first day of data runs.   My son Ryan and I observed an increase in its thrust from ~1.0 milli-Newton at 2.15 MHz and then noted that it went up to ~5.0 milli-Newton at 3.8 MHz with about the same input power.  The predicted M-E frequency thrust scaling for these MLT operating frequencies is (3.8 MHz /2.15 MHz)^3 = 5.53.   Well I’ll be dammed…

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 06/25/2011 03:36 am
Unrelated to the current discussion but....does Woodward have any plans to get one of his future papers published in a highly prestigious physics journal (i.e. Nature, Physics Review Letters, etc)?  It would definitely help him get noticed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/25/2011 04:18 am
Unrelated to the current discussion but....does Woodward have any plans to get one of his future papers published in a highly prestigious physics journal (i.e. Nature, Physics Review Letters, etc)?  It would definitely help him get noticed.

GeeGee:

Dr. Woodward follows his own path these days and is at a stage in his life that he is not interested in pursuing the publish or perish paradigm of a lot of academics.  As to his Stargate paper, he will probably just submit it to the Foundations of Physics Journal and let that be good enough.

Best,

Paul M. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 06/25/2011 07:47 pm

GeeGee:

Dr. Woodward follows his own path these days and is at a stage in his life that he is not interested in pursuing the publish or perish paradigm of a lot of academics.  As to his Stargate paper, he will probably just submit it to the Foundations of Physics Journal and let that be good enough.

Best,

Paul M. 

That's definitely understandable. I bring this up because it seemed to have worked for D-Wave systems (the company claiming to have the world's first functioning quantum computer). Scott Aaranson, their biggest critic, announced his retirement as "D-Wave's chief skeptic" after they published their paper in Nature. Of course, D-Wave has a much less controversial claim in comparison to Woodward, and I don't think Woodward really has a "chief skeptic."

By the way, several pages back I posted this criticism I found on physicsforums.com when I did a search for Dennis Sciama, but no one responded. Keep in mind this person (a physicist, presumably) who wrote this seems to be a proponent of Sciama's vector theory of gravity.

"After reading the patent and some of the other material, in particular the paper "MACH’S PRINCIPLE, MASS FLUCTUATIONS, AND RAPID SPACETIME TRANSPORT" linked from Woodward's web site, I'm extremely sceptical.

In Special Relativity, all four components of four-momentum (that is, energy and linear momentum) are locally conserved at the microscopic level, with an equation of continuity. This also applies locally within GR, and is thought to apply on a larger scale too although there is some difficulty in describing this in GR because gravitational energy cannot be localized in a unique way.

It is certainly true that local conservation rules do NOT apply to rest mass, but Newton's law applies to total energy rather than rest mass, so this isn't relevant.

What may not be immediately clear is that this means that if energy is supplied to something by any means, regardless of whether it is via wires, pipes, axles, fields or whatever, then any change in energy or momentum must flow through that route.

For example, if you look up "dipole gravity" you'll find that many years ago Eue Jin Jeong had an idea that if you spin up a hemispherical object around its axis of symmetry, you will shift the center of mass slightly along the axis because of relativistic considerations. (This can be better illustrated by considering an axle with two wheels on it of the same mass but different radii, so one gets more rotational kinetic energy than the other as the rotation rate increases). It is true that the center of mass of the system shifts, but if you use Special Relativity to analyze the details of how the torque is applied through the axis, you will find that if the assembly were free to slide along its axis, it would shift to keep the center of mass in the same place, and a force has to be applied to prevent that from happening, so there is no overall shift of the center of mass. (However, Eue Jin Jeong has ignored this analysis and is now apparently trying to profit from this idea).

Similarly, I think Woodward must be ignoring some part of the energy or momentum flow to achieve his result. For example, it appears that he thinks that there is a loophole related to dm/dt terms in Newton's law. However, this isn't relevant, because the microscopic conservation of four-momentum is exact, and even if the calculations in difficult cases involve extra terms, these cancel out when you consider the flow of energy from one described system to another.

Similar ideas relating to unbalanced forces in sufficiently complex systems such as gyroscopes have been presented many times before (such as in the "Dean Drive" and ideas from Eric Laithwaite). In each case, a complex calculation appears to show unbalanced terms. However, as four-momentum is locally conserved, any such effect must be due to an incomplete or incorrect calculation, even if it is very difficult to find a specific error.

This means that if there is any possibility of some propellantless drive, it cannot arise from combining existing physical effects in a new complicated way, as all of those physical effects are known to be subject to the local conservation rules. It can only arise from new physics."



I'm not very educated in physics (computer science/math student) so I can't really comment on his technical arguments, but the phrase "combining physical effects in a new complicated way" seems suspicious. From what little I understand of the theory, transient mass fluctuations is a novel effect, not a combination of known physical effects (though there isn't really any new physics, besides the incorporation of Mach's principle into GR).

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 06/25/2011 10:18 pm
In Eue Jin Jeong's case, the experiments very clearly show his theory to be invalid (i.e., there is no observed change in Cm).

In Woodward's case, not so. Clearly "something" happens to cause a net force -- it's just not sufficiently large yet in comparison to the level of noise or other  incidental effects (thermal or electrostrictive effects being the main conventional suspects) to be certain that what is happening is a new effect, or just a hard-to-discern conventional effect that appears at the "right" times.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/27/2011 03:16 pm
Quote
Nonsense, no theory is required in order to be valid to contain within it explanations for how every derivative question it raises is answered. Newton himself coildn't have passed that test.

True, but the objection was not asking for an explanation of all derivative questions.  The poster asked for an explanation of one question, regarding temperature change.

Quote
If there is no mechanism for this temeprature change to occur within the theory itself, then the theory is not compliant with the second law...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 06/27/2011 10:42 pm
False syllogism. The theory does not have to contain within it a mechanism for temperature transfer consistent with the second law, in order for the theory to be valid; it merely must describe a situation (or condition) that does not exclude such a mechanism, which as far as I can tell it meets.

To see how rediculous the orignal line of reasoning is, consider--newton's formulation of gravitation contains no method for temperature transfer between two bodies.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 06/28/2011 12:58 am
Anyone read reddit?

Found a thread on Woodward's recent claim of consistent and reversible 1 micronewton thrust. Of course, redditer's are quite critical of any non-mainstream physics, so here's a few I found:

"Mach effect: The math is wrong. Simply put, they make a mistake in their assumptions for the underlying physical model. All results they predict are then tainted by that.
The problem is that they assume local non-conservation of mass-energy. This leads to non-conservation of momentum, which is their "amazing" conclusion.
If you force mass-energy to be conserved by using a more accurate formulation, then the prediction is that nothing interesting happens. (Just use the electromagnetic stress tensor... it isn't hard.) In the light of this, their results are highly consistent with noise. Remember, ultrasound and static electricity are a pain to shield from. Even a small amount of leakage totally ruins the experiment.

It is also something ruled out by Noether's theorem. A device would have to warp space-time significantly in order for it to happen. (i.e. gravitational-wave rocket from black hole - black hole mergers.)"

Had to look up what Noether's theorem is on wiki:

"Noether's (first) theorem states that any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law. The theorem was proved by German mathematician Emmy Noether in 1915 and published in 1918. The action of a physical system is the integral over time of a Lagrangian function (which may or may not be an integral over space of a Lagrangian density function), from which the system's behavior can be determined by the principle of least action."

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/28/2011 02:07 am
An electric motor and a wheel on a surface combine to convert electrical energy into forward momentum.  Heat gets lost during the conversion.  When the electricity is cut off, friction causes the wheeled mechanism to eventually come to a halt and the momentum is converted back to heat.

Here, unless I am mistaken, these people claim to convert electrical energy into forward motion.  Instead of using a wheel to push instantaneously against the local mass, they push instantaneously against distant mass somehow, which I don't understand.

If there's electrical energy involved, there's heat involved.

[Paraphrasing Sebtal]...If there is no mechanism for this temeprature change to occur within the theory itself, then the theory is not compliant with the second law ...

That's what I picked up on, in trying to understand the operation of the ME device.  It seems to me that the second law of thermodynamics must be accounted for.  so when Cuddihy sez:

Quote
The theory does not have to contain within it a mechanism for temperature transfer consistent with the second law, in order for the theory to be valid; it merely must describe a situation (or condition) that does not exclude such a mechanism, which as far as I can tell it meets...

... I get confused.  If the theory must not exclude the mechanism, then the mechanism, by default, must be in the theory somewhere.  Otherwise, you're saying that the mechamism of temperature transfer is in fact excluded.  And it sure seems like this drive will have a heat signature.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 06/28/2011 02:15 am
Anyone read reddit?

Found a thread on Woodward's recent claim of consistent and reversible 1 micronewton thrust. Of course, redditer's are quite critical of any non-mainstream physics, so here's a few I found:



The person who wrote this expanded his argument when I asked what the mathematical error is exactly:

"They forget to include the effects of the energy-momentum of the electromagnetic field. Add that, and the non-conservation of momentum goes away. Just redo their calculations using Liénard–Wiechert potentials, it isn't hard. Radiation reaction forces are perfectly fine in electromagnetism... they just are so weak as to be useless for propulsion in anything but a solar sail.
Their experimental results also aren't particularly encouraging. They seem to ignore the 1/r near-field effects from a varying electrostatic device. The induced capacitance with the external apparatus will give "spurious" forces on the test mass.
What they need to do (and haven't as far as I can tell) is put their device inside a Faraday Cage, then weigh the total mass of the device + cage as a function of system parameters. They really should also put the power supply inside the cage as well. Using a battery instead of high voltage lines would get rid of other stray forces that are of the order of what they want to detect.
However, the biggest problem they have is that their theory is inconsistent with quantum field theory. If momentum conservation isn't true, then we'd expect to see it violated on microscopic scales. (Quantum mechanically, if something isn't forbidden, then it eventually must occur.) In fact, historically speaking, the discovery of the "missing mass" in beta decay would have been an ideal time for this. However, we now know that neutrinos exist."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 06/28/2011 03:55 am
1. for the theorectical objection, if it's so easy, I'd like to see the actual "redo" of Woodward's calculation. It sounds to me like a bit of dancing that doesn't involve an actual equation.

The statement author is asserting that Woodward's model for a particle is flawed but I'm not sure what he's talking about -- Woodward does write the scalar and the vector potentials in accordance with L-W from the beginning, ( cf http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm ); so that inconsistency, plus the fact that the statement author repeatedly says "they", when he can only be referring in his criticism to one person, Woodward, makes me suspect he hasn't actually read Woodward's papers or writings, just criticisms of the effect from third sources.

The experimental objections make much more sense (even if they are wrong in the specific details of previous experiements, on the whole they are correct on likely sources of error and spurious signal).

The quantum field theory argument is emotionally the strongest point and the one that causes an immediate skepticism with regard to the theory, but following it is dangerously simplistic--after all, where in the natural world (even microscopically?) can you find rapidly varying electric potentials and kinetic energies in such a way that they are at the same frequency but out of phase? The gut says, it must be around if we look hard enough, but the brain cannot find an example. In fact they seem to be mutually exclusive natural conditions (it would be much like stumbling across an active natural nuclear reactor -- possible, but unlikely)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 06/28/2011 05:26 am
cuddihy,

I sent him your response and will post his retort when he writes it up. I also told him to create an account so he can make his arguments here directly (I do not enjoy being a ferry between two forums.) In the mean time, he did post something else relating to a diagram in the NBF article:

"Oh yes, their "cartoon diagram" (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/SqGImjSOaVI/AAAAAAAAE1M/j3NVWJ9Gfqg/s1600-h/macheffect.jpg) of the process is also trivially broken. (The one that doesn't even bother using electromagnetism.)
You start with two masses separated by a rod. You then want to transfer mass/energy from one end to the other. What happens? The center of mass stays fixed, and the whole device appears to shift a bit as you transfer.
Now you contract the rod. What happens? The center of mass stays fixed, and the device shrinks.
Now you transfer the mass back to where it was. What happens? The center of mass stays fixed, and the device shifts a bit.
Now you expand the rod. What happens? The center of mass stays fixed, and the device expands.
Throughout each step, the center of mass stays fixed. The forces you need to apply to the delta-mass/energy to transfer it from one side to another are inversely and oppositely applied to the rod. If you ignore these forces (which they do by mistake), then you will get nonconservation of momentum.
The above assumes a dipole device. If the device has a varying quadrapole instead (perhaps by rotating instead of vibrating), then you will radiate gravitational waves. The thrust you get from this is negligible though for any reasonable sized test masses and vibration frequencies. If however, you are vibrating a set of black holes or neutron stars you could indeed get an interesting amount of delta-v. Unfortunately, engineering difficulties prevent us from using such technology at the moment."

Edit:

By the way cuddihy, I don't see how the quantum field theory assertion is strong.  It seems to be based on a false premise. That is, that the mach effect violates conservation of momentum, and it hasn't been observed on microscopic scales, therefore it can't work.

From what I understand of Woodward's hypothesis, momentum conservation will appear to be locally violated if you were to to look at an M-E drive as an isolated system, but not if you take into account that the universe is the system "box".

Similarly, if you were to isolate an electrodynamic tether without taking into account the field it is interacting with and the source, it would appear to be a local violation of conservation of momentum.


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 06/28/2011 10:59 am

The statement author is asserting that Woodward's model for a particle is flawed but I'm not sure what he's talking about -- Woodward does write the scalar and the vector potentials in accordance with L-W from the beginning,

Response to this

"You use the L-W potentials to calculate the electric and magnetic fields so you can work out their energy density correctly. Doing this allows you to fix any mistakes in the vibrating mass-dipole model.
Except that the given page doesn't actually use them for that... The L-W potentials are only exact for the electromagnetic field in flat space. Using them for the gravitational field is only a (poor) approximation.
To do a generic calculation you put a test four-volume element around your test particle. You then integrate the stress-energy tensor on the surface of that four-volume. The tensor version of Gauss's theorem shows that the energy-momentum in = energy-momentum out + integral of grad T in the four volume. Since Gab=8piTab, we can relate the divergence of energy-momentum to that of the Einstein tensor. Due to the Bianchi identities, this is identically zero, and thus energy-momentum is conserved. This is a fundamental property of General Relativity. If you make an approximation to GR, and lose this conservation, then the approximation is at fault for being inaccurate.
To be accurate, you need to use the metric tensor instead, and calculate geodesics via a variational principle. The curvature of space-time means that using a simple potential doesn't work generically. For example in a Kerr space-time, the Carter constant is due to a Killing tensor (not vector) field. In some cases you can't even define a potential at all due to there being less conserved quantities than equations of motion. In short, the only thing General Relativity cares about is the local curvature, and the potential is a global quantity."


Is anyone on Woodward's mailing list? This sounds like the kind of interesting criticism he might be interested in.

he quantum field theory argument is emotionally the strongest point and the one that causes an immediate skepticism with regard to the theory, but following it is dangerously simplistic--after all, where in the natural world (even microscopically?) can you find rapidly varying electric potentials and kinetic energies in such a way that they are at the same frequency but out of phase?

"Unfortunately, the quantum world is even more hostile than that. Due to its sum-over-all-histories effects, even a small violation will be magnified. In effect, it expands the degrees of freedom into eigenmodes. If such a mode doesn't conserve momentum (and thus energy) it will be rapidly excited. A vacuum with that property would be violently unstable.

I may join nasaspaceflight, but that particular thread isn't encouraging. Arguing with crackpots who don't understand physics isn't particularly fun."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/28/2011 02:51 pm

The statement author is asserting that Woodward's model for a particle is flawed but I'm not sure what he's talking about -- Woodward does write the scalar and the vector potentials in accordance with L-W from the beginning,

Response to this

"You use the L-W potentials to calculate the electric and magnetic fields so you can work out their energy density correctly. Doing this allows you to fix any mistakes in the vibrating mass-dipole model.

Except that the given page doesn't actually use them for that... The L-W potentials are only exact for the electromagnetic field in flat space. Using them for the gravitational field is only a (poor) approximation.

To do a generic calculation you put a test four-volume element around your test particle. You then integrate the stress-energy tensor on the surface of that four-volume. The tensor version of Gauss's theorem shows that the energy-momentum in = energy-momentum out + integral of grad T in the four volume. Since Gab=8piTab, we can relate the divergence of energy-momentum to that of the Einstein tensor. Due to the Bianchi identities, this is identically zero, and thus energy-momentum is conserved. This is a fundamental property of General Relativity. If you make an approximation to GR, and lose this conservation, then the approximation is at fault for being inaccurate.

To be accurate, you need to use the metric tensor instead, and calculate geodesics via a variational principle. The curvature of space-time means that using a simple potential doesn't work generically. For example in a Kerr space-time, the Carter constant is due to a Killing tensor (not vector) field. In some cases you can't even define a potential at all due to there being less conserved quantities than equations of motion. In short, the only thing General Relativity cares about is the local curvature, and the potential is a global quantity."


Is anyone on Woodward's mailing list? This sounds like the kind of interesting criticism he might be interested in.

he quantum field theory argument is emotionally the strongest point and the one that causes an immediate skepticism with regard to the theory, but following it is dangerously simplistic--after all, where in the natural world (even microscopically?) can you find rapidly varying electric potentials and kinetic energies in such a way that they are at the same frequency but out of phase?

"Unfortunately, the quantum world is even more hostile than that. Due to its sum-over-all-histories effects, even a small violation will be magnified. In effect, it expands the degrees of freedom into eigenmodes. If such a mode doesn't conserve momentum (and thus energy) it will be rapidly excited. A vacuum with that property would be violently unstable.

I may join nasaspaceflight, but that particular thread isn't encouraging. Arguing with crackpots who don't understand physics isn't particularly fun."

GeeGee:

Please have S. Fuerst at reddit review Woodward's M-E derivation in the attached Woodward's "Flux Capacitors and the Origins of Inertia paper, Appendix A" and have him get back to us with any specific complaints about THIS M-E derivation.  In fact if he needs to talk directly with Dr. Woodward about it, leave me a private note here at NSF and I'll provide Woodward's home e-mail address to you to pass along to Fuerst, so Fuerst can converse with Jim about his M-E derivation concerns directly.

PS:  Dr. Woodward just came back to me with this comment on Fuerst's crtique:

"The (M-E) calculation is correct.  The conservation issues are automatically included.  And what the critic is ignoring is the momentum flux in the GRAVITY field.  As for quantum field theory, I suspect the critic doesn't have a profound grasp of that.  Transient violations of momenergy conservation -- justified by appeal to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle -- are routinely made in quantum field theory.  Indeed, such violations are the enabler of the virtual fields that dress elementary particles in the renormalization process.  So his point is simply worng."

EDIT: Please note that S. Fuerst has two reference on the web That we've found so far, see below.  It appears that the CSUF and Stanford GRT folks need to talk...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sfuerst

"I'm a Post Doc at Stanford, currently working on General Relativistic Radiative Transfer."

http://stanfordwho.stanford.edu/SWApp/lookup?search=fuerst&key=DR916N632

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 06/29/2011 02:35 am
Paul,

I have not received a response yet from sfuerst. If I do, I will request that he speak to Woodward directly, as I find this method of ferrying messages between internet users to be quite an inefficient way of arguing.

By the way, if you do a search for "General Relativistic Radiative Transfer," you will find some material authored by Steven Fuerst, i.e.

http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_astro/academic/theses/svf_thesis.pdf

http://gammaray.msfc.nasa.gov/~mizuno/GRMHD-radiation.pdf

http://gammaray.nsstc.nasa.gov/colloquia/abstracts_fall04/StevenF.html

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 06/29/2011 05:35 am
doing a search at Reddit.com (which is not exactly like a forum as physicsforum.com, where they DO only accept mainstream physics), the only references to Woodward and Mach Effect I found were links to two articles at Next Big Future.


can you please post a link for the discussion you mentioned, GeeGee?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 06/29/2011 05:53 am
http://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/hsaag/does_anyone_know_anything_about_the_likelihood_of/

This is the only thread I've ever seen on the topic.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 06/29/2011 01:39 pm
Hello Everyone,  I'm sfuerst from Reddit.  Here is an email I sent to Paul March yesterday:

  I've read through the paper.  The problem lies with Figure 1, and
equation 11.

In figure 1, you need to explicitly say where the energy going into
and out from "FM" goes to.  i.e. Where is the battery that is charging
and discharging the capacitor? If the battery is inside FM, then the
total mass/energy of FM remains constant, and nothing interesting
happens.  If the battery is in A, then we can split the problem into
two, the reaction mass and actuator to the "left" of the battery, and
the reaction mass within the battery and actuator connected to the
fluctuating mass on the right.  Do the following analysis on both
parts.

The remaining choice is that the battery must be in (or is) the large
reaction mass "RM".  Now break the duty cycle into four parts.

Step 1: Energy flows from the battery in RM to FM
Step 2: The actuator expands
Step 3: Energy flows from FM back to RM
Step 4: The actuator contracts.

What happens to the center of mass in each step?
In step 1, due to the energy flow, the center of A is displaced from
the center of mass.  The center of mass does not move.  (The forces
required to move the mass/energy from RM to FM are balanced by equal
forces on A.)
In step 2, the center of mass does not move, but RM and FM are displaced.
In step 3, a similar things happens as in step 1.  The center of mass
does not move, but the center of the actuator does.
In step 4, the center of mass does not move, but RM and FM are displaced again.

At no stage is the center of mass moved by the duty cycle.  This means
that equation 11 is incorrect.  It appears the derivation of it has
gone wrong by ignoring the small displacements of the center of A in
steps 1 and 3.  If this is wrongly done, then the center of mass of
the system is accelerated by the mistaken non-conservation of
momentum.  (The text says the derivation assumes that the mass of RM
is infinite.  If so, then RM cannot move, and also nothing happens.)

One possibility to try to get around this is to state that there is no
"battery", and the mass fluctuations are into and out of the
gravitational field.  Unfortunately, this doesn't work either.  Due to
conservation of energy/momentum, monopole and dipole mass/energy
fluctuations do not exist in General Relativity.  If you wish to
radiate gravitational waves, you need to have a varying quadrapole
moment.  If a theory of gravity predicts dipole (or the required
monopole) radiation, then it has been ruled out by experimental
gravity wave searches.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 06/29/2011 01:52 pm
So the problem comes down to basic high-school / first year university level Newtonian mechanics.  Imagine you have a frictionless air-track, and a cart with a fairly large mass on the track.  Attach a spring connected to a small test mass to the cart.   Now excite the spring, what happens?

The center of mass will stay fixed, and the cart and test mass will vibrate oppositely in phase.  If the mass of the cart is much greater than the test mass, then it will jiggle only very slightly, whereas the test mass will move violently.  The jiggling may be small... but it is very important.  Without it, momentum is not conserved.

The problem with the derivation of the mach propulsion force comes down to ignoring this small jiggling.  The small shifting backwards and forwards of where the centers of expansion and contraction happen exactly cancels out the effects of each.

The above is fairly obvious in Newtonian mechanics.  A similar effect happens in electromagnetism, but it is more subtle.  Since E=mc^2, the displacements generated by charging and discharging a capacitor are small.  (Damped by a factor of 1/c^2 compared to other terms.)  However, they are still there, and you can't neglect them if they are the dominant terms.  (As in this case.)

It is easy to accidentally drop the required term from the calculation.  If you do so though, then you break conservation of momentum, and get incorrect results.

In short, the center of mass doesn't move.  This means that the time-averaged force on the reaction mass is zero... which means no propulsion.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 06/29/2011 04:54 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a fundamental element of ME conjecture that you vary one of the mechanical elements' inertia?

The small mass is attached to the cart, with everything located on a frictionless surface.  The small mass, in ME conjecture, is used to propel the cart by varying that small mass' inertia (or vice versa), while exciting the spring at corresponding rhythm.

The question isn't whether momentum is conserved in this experiment, but whether the origins of inertia are as conjectured.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/29/2011 06:14 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a fundamental element of ME conjecture that you vary one of the mechanical elements' inertia?

The small mass is attached to the cart, with everything located on a frictionless surface.  The small mass, in ME conjecture, is used to propel the cart by varying that small mass' inertia (or vice versa), while exciting the spring at corresponding rhythm.

The question isn't whether momentum is conserved in this experiment, but whether the origins of inertia are as conjectured.

Cinder:

"The question isn't whether momentum is conserved in this experiment, but whether the origins of inertia are as conjectured."

That is excatly right.  Woodward's M-E cojecture rises or falls on the actual "Origins of Inertia" as explored by Sciama and Nordtvedt and himself over the last 20years as Dr. Woodward just commented on to Dr. Feurst and me via a separate e-mail thread:

"What von Feurst says to you about gravity waves is, of course, correct.  In the standard calculation the lowest order freely propagating at infinity term is the quadrupole term.  And it is minuscule.

The "problem" here is that in standard GR, inertial reaction forces are not considered to be gravitational in origin, notwithstanding that Sciama's calculation (and one done by Nordtvedt in the 1980s on "linear accelerative frame dragging") show that when the universe is taken to be "rigidly" accelerating in some direction past a local object, it exerts a force on the object (if it is constrained to not participate in the acceleration) that is just the inertial reaction force when phi/c^2 is roughly one.

Since inertial reaction forces are acceleration dependent, a radiative process is involved.  And since inertial reaction forces are decades of orders of magnitude larger than the sort of radiation reaction forces of standard gravity wave analysis, the source of von Feurst's comments is straight-forward.  "Mach effects" are just Newtonian order tansients in the much larger inertial reaction force picture, as you note.

May I say, Dr. von Feurst, I am pleased that you have troubled yourself to look farther into this business than many, perhaps most would.  We're not trying to invent "new" physics.  And we are trying to avoid wishful thinking."


Edit: Dr Feurst, you might also want to find the time to read Dr. Woodward's Gravitation web page at his CSUF web page, especially in regards to the question surrounding the "Origins of Inertia" as sourced below:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/component/zoo/item/dr-james-f-woodward
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/ 

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 06/29/2011 07:21 pm
the participation of Sfuerst on this topic is of great value.

I do hope he notices that the physics behind ME are much more consistent and well calculated and studied than other far fetched stuff, like the unfortunate EM Drive...

Btw, there is a lot of interesting info on this thread about ME, hundreds of questions answered by Paul March, etc, too bad this is NOT an ME thread... it starts with, and has dozens of pages dedicated to nonsensical stuff like Shawyer´s EM Drive (btw, what an unfortunate similar name... I have seen many people confuse EM Drive with Woodward´s Mach Effect)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 06/29/2011 07:25 pm
Paul, I remember (maybe wrongly) you saying something, a few months ago, about the fact the ME Research would greatly benefit from having a relativist in the team.

maybe you found one? Just need to convince him (or not) with data and equations I guess.  :)


or maybe I am confusing several things. My memory isnt the best around ;)

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/30/2011 04:25 am
Paul, I remember (maybe wrongly) you saying something, a few months ago, about the fact the ME Research would greatly benefit from having a relativist in the team.

maybe you found one? Just need to convince him (or not) with data and equations I guess.  :)


or maybe I am confusing several things. My memory isnt the best around ;)


Aceshigh:

Dr. Woodward thinks that he already has on in the guise of one Prof Heidi Fern at CSUF.  She has not said much so far to me though, so we shall see how useful she turns out to be.

Best,
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 06/30/2011 05:07 am
oh, nice to hear about it. I was thinking o SFuerst however :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/30/2011 02:50 pm
Well, this discussion has become much more interesting.  I'd like to question Steven Feurst a tad.  First, briefly, my math skills virtually stopped at calculus, so I've approached this subject from my general knowledge of relativity.  Obviously, it is a fascinating subject.

I've read through the paper.  The problem lies with Figure 1, and equation 11. ...

I understand your criticism here to be either that the experimental setup was incorrect, or that the diagrams of the experiment are incorrect.  Therefore, you are not surprised that the center of mass does not move.

So the problem comes down to basic high-school / first year university level Newtonian mechanics.  ...

Which is the level of analysis that I can apply.  As was later mentioned in the thread by Cinder, "a fundamental element of ME conjecture [is] that you vary one of the mechanical elements' inertia".

Buried up in the thread who knows how many pages, is the simple mantra: "Push heavy, pull light".  (If it's the opposite, I think it doesn't matter.)  As I understand this mechanically, that means the center of mass is pushed, say to the left, and small relativistic forces increase the mass.  Then the mass is pushed to the right, by a carefully timed pulse of energy, at the moment that the mass has gotten lighter.  This process is repeated under a controlled fashion, so that electricity is directly converted into forward momentum in a preferred direction.  It's not clear to me at which point the mass got lighter, which is more an indication of my lack of understanding.  However, this mechanism is seen to engage the inertia of the universe as a whole, which I always thought was a "distant" mass, not a "local" mass.

One of the objections to the conjecture is that it calls for instantaneous action at a distance.  However, Woodward et al., maintain that this is not so, that action at a distance is not required for the conjecture to be true.  And then they go all math on me, and I go, huh?

But consider also, Mr. Woodward's recent comment: "Since inertial reaction forces are acceleration dependent, a radiative process is involved".  I understand that a radiative process can only proceed at the speed of light.  Therefore, I struggle to understand the process by which the distant mass of the universe, thru a radiateve process, can have an instantaneous effect on a local mass.

If you could oblige and help my understanding, I'd certainly appreciate it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 06/30/2011 07:04 pm
One of the objections to the conjecture is that it calls for instantaneous action at a distance.  However, Woodward et al., maintain that this is not so, that action at a distance is not required for the conjecture to be true.  And then they go all math on me, and I go, huh?

But consider also, Mr. Woodward's recent comment: "Since inertial reaction forces are acceleration dependent, a radiative process is involved".  I understand that a radiative process can only proceed at the speed of light.  Therefore, I struggle to understand the process by which the distant mass of the universe, thru a radiateve process, can have an instantaneous effect on a local mass.

If you could oblige and help my understanding, I'd certainly appreciate it.

Have you tried reading the wiki entry for Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory? Or Woodward's "the origin of inertia" page where the concept of retarded/advanced waves is introduced?

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler-Feynman_absorber_theory


By the way, Paul, has sfuerst been communicating with Woodward in e-mail exchanges? I'm kind of interested in whether or not he's changed his mind on the math.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/01/2011 04:19 am
One of the objections to the conjecture is that it calls for instantaneous action at a distance.  However, Woodward et al., maintain that this is not so, that action at a distance is not required for the conjecture to be true.  And then they go all math on me, and I go, huh?

But consider also, Mr. Woodward's recent comment: "Since inertial reaction forces are acceleration dependent, a radiative process is involved".  I understand that a radiative process can only proceed at the speed of light.  Therefore, I struggle to understand the process by which the distant mass of the universe, thru a radiateve process, can have an instantaneous effect on a local mass.

If you could oblige and help my understanding, I'd certainly appreciate it.

Have you tried reading the wiki entry for Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory? Or Woodward's "the origin of inertia" page where the concept of retarded/advanced waves is introduced?

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler-Feynman_absorber_theory


By the way, Paul, has sfuerst been communicating with Woodward in e-mail exchanges? I'm kind of interested in whether or not he's changed his mind on the math.


GeeGee:

No word back from Steve F. since Woodward's last post I appended above at least for ones I was privy to.  I hope that means that Dr. von Fuerst is taking the time to read through and understand the Sciama and Woodward papers I pointed him to.  Time will tell.

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 07/01/2011 05:51 am
its a lot of info to chew through.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/03/2011 06:05 am
I was reading Harold White's presentation on QVF/MHD thrusters and I'm curious...is there any test you can perform to tell this effect apart from the Mach effect?


I kind of understand the picture of how a MLT is supposed to work (push heavy, pull light), but this QVF/MHD effect seems a tad harder to visualize.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/06/2011 04:52 pm
its a lot of info to chew through.

AcesHigh:

And attached is Woodward's latest M-E theory and experimental data dump presentation on his PZT Stack tests performed last month.  Given that Dr. Woodward's now needs to increase the thrust output of his PZT stacks by another order of magnitude to demonstrate an understanding of the M-E's I/O scaling rules, this data set is getting to be a rubust one, IMO of course.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/06/2011 05:45 pm
I was reading Harold White's presentation on QVF/MHD thrusters and I'm curious...is there any test you can perform to tell this effect apart from the Mach effect?

I kind of understand the picture of how a MLT is supposed to work (push heavy, pull light), but this QVF/MHD effect seems a tad harder to visualize.

GeeGee:

Answer to your first question: The main thing that delineates Dr. White's QVF/MHD conjecture from Dr. Woodward's M-E conjecture when applied to MLT like devices is the lack of need for a BULK acceleration of all the energy storing dielectric verses the M-E conjecture’s need for a bulk acceleration required to evoke the inertia reaction forces needed to express the M-E.  To design a test that would make or break the QVF/MHD conjecture, one would have to build a device that has NO bulk acceleration of the MLT caps from any source including that from the piezoelectric effect inherent in high-k ceramic dielectrics used in its construction.

Answer to your second question:  The QVF/MHD conjecture posits that under local ionic accelerations in the dielectric in either direction relative to the applied E-field, the dielectric ions transiently densifies the local free vacuum mass/energy density state in front of them, assumed to be made from semi-virtual electron/positron pairs, from the nominal mass/energy vacuum density of ~1x10^-26 kg/m^3 up to ten to twenty orders of magnitude larger.  This transiently densified vacuum state plasma is then expelled out of the dielectric via an externally applied and crossed B-field that generates a Lorentz force that accelerates this semi-virtual and densified electron/positron pair plasma out of the caps in much the same way as a turbofan jet engine functions with air.  So a QVF/MHD device uses a semi-continuous thrust production process verses the M-E’s cyclic thrust production process.

BTW, one of Dr. White's QVF/MHD conjecture predictions indicated that when high voltage (HV) direct current (dc) potentials are applied to the MLT caps with a crossed DC B-field, that it would generate milli-Newton forces.   I tested this conjecture with ~25kV-dc and ~1,000 Gauss dc B-field in a 4" OD Teflon cap MLT structure and found zero thrust produced.  At a minimum, it appears that the QVF/MHD model has to be restricted to its alternating current (ac) predictions, or that the M-E is right and the QVF/MHD conjecture is wrong.   Another failure in the QVF/MHD conjecture is that it does not predict a thrust in devices built like Woodward's PZT stacks, since the crossed E-field and B-fields in the PZT stack cap’s produce net zero Lorentz forces needed to accelerate the QVF/MHD’s posited semi-virtual electron/positron pair plasma out of the stack configuration.   

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/06/2011 09:49 pm
BTW, one of Dr. White's QVF/MHD conjecture predictions indicated that when high voltage (HV) direct current (dc) potentials are applied to the MLT caps with a crossed DC B-field, that it would generate milli-Newton forces.   I tested this conjecture with ~25kV-dc and ~1,000 Gauss dc B-field in a 4" OD Teflon cap MLT structure and found zero thrust produced.  At a minimum, it appears that the QVF/MHD model has to be restricted to its alternating current (ac) predictions, or that the M-E is right and the QVF/MHD conjecture is wrong.   Another failure in the QVF/MHD conjecture is that it does not predict a thrust in devices built like Woodward's PZT stacks, since the crossed E-field and B-fields in the PZT stack cap’s produce net zero Lorentz forces needed to accelerate the QVF/MHD’s posited semi-virtual electron/positron pair plasma out of the stack configuration.   

Best,

Paul M.

Hrmm, so it appears then that Woodward's hypothesis seems to be the most likely explanation for the anomalous effect at this moment. I'm sure Dr. White would object, but we'll just have to wait for more experimentation to come to a solid conclusion.

By the way, the latest slides seem encouraging. It seems like you guys are getting to a point where experimental error seems less plausible. Now we just have to see whether or not the effect can be scaled up for space propulsion, or if York Dobbyns was right when he asserted that at best, the effect is very minuscule. After reading the Economist's "The end of the space age" article, I really hope Dobbyns is wrong.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 07/07/2011 01:39 am

By the way, the latest slides seem encouraging. It seems like you guys are getting to a point where experimental error seems less plausible. Now we just have to see whether or not the effect can be scaled up for space propulsion, or if York Dobbyns was right when he asserted that at best, the effect is very minuscule. After reading the Economist's "The end of the space age" article, I really hope Dobbyns is wrong.

Concur, the level of detail & serious attention to clear explanation of the testing and elimination of spurious causes is really encouraging. Even in the current "that's a specialty area, I don't know" mentality that pervades science these days, it's hard to ignore when it hits you in the face.

I would say if he can get the thrust levels above the "arguably greater than six sigma" stage (i.e., to where the word "arguably" begins to seem silly, as opposed to necessary), it will be convincing proof that the device produces measurable thrust due to unconventional explanations.

If one of the contributers can do the same with a MLT or other device that operates on the same proposed principles, but using different methods, that would provide the clear evidence that not only is scalable propellantless propulsion within reach, but that that the source of intertia is gravitational, Mach's principle is correct, and we can at last give
dm0~(1./4.pi.G)[(1./rho.c^2)(dP/dt)-(1./rho.c^2)^2(P^2./V^2)] its proper name, the Woodward effect equation. That would launch a new dawn in science and perhaps return theoretical physics a bit closer to, well, phenomena that are investigatable within human lifespans.

For now, however, the current data .pdf is pretty darn exciting.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/07/2011 03:38 am

By the way, the latest slides seem encouraging. It seems like you guys are getting to a point where experimental error seems less plausible. Now we just have to see whether or not the effect can be scaled up for space propulsion, or if York Dobbyns was right when he asserted that at best, the effect is very minuscule. After reading the Economist's "The end of the space age" article, I really hope Dobbyns is wrong.

Concur, the level of detail & serious attention to clear explanation of the testing and elimination of spurious causes is really encouraging. Even in the current "that's a specialty area, I don't know" mentality that pervades science these days, it's hard to ignore when it hits you in the face.

I would say if he can get the thrust levels above the "arguably greater than six sigma" stage (i.e., to where the word "arguably" begins to seem silly, as opposed to necessary), it will be convincing proof that the device produces measurable thrust due to unconventional explanations.

If one of the contributers can do the same with a MLT or other device that operates on the same proposed principles, but using different methods, that would provide the clear evidence that not only is scalable propellantless propulsion within reach, but that that the source of intertia is gravitational, Mach's principle is correct, and we can at last give
dm0~(1./4.pi.G)[(1./rho.c^2)(dP/dt)-(1./rho.c^2)^2(P^2./V^2)] its proper name, the Woodward effect equation. That would launch a new dawn in science and perhaps return theoretical physics a bit closer to, well, phenomena that are investigatable within human lifespans.

For now, however, the current data .pdf is pretty darn exciting.

Folks:

I forgot to append the following Woodward paper that was referenced in Part-1 of the latest M-E data dump.  It's a deeper explanation of action-at-a-distance and what it really means in the M-E context.  I.e., James C. Maxwell's E&M derivation's negative square root propagation solution that predicts possible acausal effects must be taken seriously not only for E&M, but also for gravitational effects as well.

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 07/07/2011 04:09 am
I wonder if SFuerst will return to the topic. Paul, do you have any info if Fuerst has contacted Dr Woodward???


well, the least we can assume is that Dr Fuerst is spending a lot of his time to read all the info provided.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/07/2011 04:31 am
I wonder if SFuerst will return to the topic. Paul, do you have any info if Fuerst has contacted Dr Woodward???

well, the least we can assume is that Dr Fuerst is spending a lot of his time to read all the info provided.

AcesHigh:

Hopefully Dr. Fuerst is catching up on Woodward's Mach Effect work that has spanned the last two plus decades.  However I've not heard anything else from him since his last post to Woodward back on Friday, so let's hope he hasn't lost interest.

BTW, as to higher M-E derived thrusts using MLT structures, there is my own 2004 and 2005 milli-Newton work that indicates that such goals shouldn't be too difficult to reach under the more rigorous test condtions such as Woodward imploys.  Of coruse what Jim is going to do next Fall provided his health holds up is to improve the current PZT-stack setup to see if he can coax its thrust output up to ~10 micro-Newton by improving the input power impedance matching with the exsiting Carvin audio amps that drive it and then building a couple of new PZT stacks using higher-Q PZT materials.  Past that he will have to replace his current 1.0 kW Carvin audio amplifiers that crap out between 60 kHz and 110 KHz and replace them with amplifiers that can provide stable output up to at least 500 kHz if not higher.

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 07/07/2011 06:30 am
Folks:

I forgot to append the following Woodward paper that was referenced in Part-1 of the latest M-E data dump.  It's a deeper explanation of action-at-a-distance and what it really means in the M-E context.  I.e., James C. Maxwell's E&M derivation's negative square root propagation solution that predicts possible acausal effects must be taken seriously not only for E&M, but also for gravitational effects as well.

Best,
Paul M.
The vector gravity theory used in that paper is Heaviside's Appendix B of his Electromagnetic Theory Vol. I, "A Gravitational and Electromagnetic Analogy", written in 1893. Here's McDonald's note on it:

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/vectorgravity.pdf

Of course, Heaviside would immediately reject any consideration of "advanced waves".

Note that Heaviside's vector gravity paper was just pushing an analogy as far as it could go. His actual gravity+electromagnetic theory is in Electromagnetic Theory Vol. III, "Matter, Electricity, Ether and the Pressure of Radiation", written in 1902. It's a far more interesting theory with all sorts of ramifications. Of course, it contains the dreaded "E" word, which instantly brands you a crackpot these days. I don't have any professional physics reputation to defend so it doesn't bother me. I'd just like to see someone with the proper mathematical chops look into it further. I can handle the plane wave solutions but not the general equations, which are where all the fun happens. In particular, the intersection of two or more intense em waves.

Anyway, I just thought I'd toss this out there.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 07/07/2011 07:36 am
Ya know, if for no other reason, it'd be great if ME panned out.  Just so it pulls the carpet under contemporary science's reluctance to going off the beaten path more than it does now.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/07/2011 08:38 am
Ya know, if for no other reason, it'd be great if ME panned out.  Just so it pulls the carpet under contemporary science's reluctance to going off the beaten path more than it does now.

Strangely enough, Woodward isn't even really doing 'off-beat' physics when you realize what he's really doing is trying to answer a fundamental question of physics - what is the source of inertia? If Woodward's right, then the space drive is an added bonus.

I don't really understand why this isn't a 'hot topic' in physics anymore. Dark energy, String theory and the Higgs particle get all the attention these days.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/07/2011 12:41 pm
Ya know, if for no other reason, it'd be great if ME panned out.  Just so it pulls the carpet under contemporary science's reluctance to going off the beaten path more than it does now.

Strangely enough, Woodward isn't even really doing 'off-beat' physics when you realize what he's really trying to do is trying to answer a fundamental question of physics - what is the source of inertia? If Woodward's right, then the space drive is an added bonus.

I don't really understand why this isn't a 'hot topic' in physics anymore. Dark energy, String theory and the Higgs particle get all the attention these days.

Mikegi:

Thanks for the Heaviside paper!

GeeGee:

Woodward just opened up his M-E distribution to the ZPE folks in the hopes of getting a constructive dialogue going between the M-E and ZPE camps.  A dialogue will hopefully push forward developments in advaced gravity physics and building Advanced Deep Space Transports (ADST).  An excerpt from Woodward's last night "A New Direction" e-mail follows:

"As you know, the events of the past several months have gotten me
thinking about the issues of advanced propulsion in a somewhat wider
setting than I've thought about them before.  As you've read in the
email appended below, the central problem facing the advanced
propulsion field in my opinion is getting the physics right -- and
that likely (if we are very lucky) there will be one path through the
physics to starships and stargates.  The way to get there, if it can be done, is through plausible physics.

There is a related problem in my opinion: the people who have been
engaged in trying to find the plausible physics that will enable
starships and stargates have formed into informal groups, each with
its take on how the physics is to be addressed.  While this, I
suppose, is quite natural, it is not the best way to tackle the
problems before us.  If you only talk to like-minded folks, you're not
likely to hear anything new often.  Is there a way to deal with this?

Yes.  Someone needs to try to get all of the interested parties who do
plausible physics into an arrangement where they can keep track of
what others are doing, and contribute constructive criticism to help forward the project.

If we sit around and wait for someone else to do this, hell will
probably freeze over before it gets done.  So I have decided to try to
get this done by changing the nature of this email circulation from
one where I update you on progress on the Mach effects project, and
occasional discusions of related maters take place, to one where those
on the circulation include people who do plausible physics from those
other informal groups (of which some of you may already be members).

To that end, I have invited Jack Sarfatti, Vince Teofilo, John
Brandenburg, Hal Puthoff, and Eric Davis to participate in this
circulation -- and I am pleased to say that they have all agreed to do
so.  I know them all to be very capable physicists who do plausible
physics.  That's not to say that I agree with all of their views on
the issues of advanced propulsion.  But that's not the point.  We do
not yet know with certainty what the path of plausible physics to
starships and stargates is.  They, or indeed others, may have
important pieces of the puzzle.  Whatever the pieces of the puzzle may
be, they will be easier to put together if we are all listening to each other -- and talking too of course."

(James F. Woodward)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 07/07/2011 05:39 pm
Mikegi:

Thanks for the Heaviside paper!
You're welcome. I hope your theory and experiments succeed. I'm skeptical but the kind of effort and dedication you have is exactly what it will take to make breakthroughs. Even if Woodward's theory doesn't pan out, you never know what other things you'll discover in the post-mortem.

Quote
Woodward just opened up his M-E distribution to the ZPE folks in the hopes of getting a constructive dialogue going between the M-E and ZPE camps.  A dialogue will hopefully push forward developments in advaced gravity physics and building Advanced Deep Space Transports (ADST).
I recommend using a private forum rather than email or other "distribution" list formats. There are websites that let you create a private forum for free (advertisements). You/Woodward would have control over who is allowed to read/signup/post/etc. I could setup a phpBB forum on one of my servers for y'all (which would be totally free -- i.e. no annoying advertising).

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: D_Dom on 07/07/2011 06:35 pm
Sounds promising, I dropped off the Woodward email list when laid-off and haven't taken the time to re-establish contact again. Except for lurking here of course.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/07/2011 10:39 pm
Mikegi:

Thanks for the Heaviside paper!

You're welcome. I hope your theory and experiments succeed. I'm skeptical but the kind of effort and dedication you have is exactly what it will take to make breakthroughs. Even if Woodward's theory doesn't pan out, you never know what other things you'll discover in the post-mortem.

Quote
Woodward just opened up his M-E distribution to the ZPE folks in the hopes of getting a constructive dialogue going between the M-E and ZPE camps.  A dialogue will hopefully push forward developments in advaced gravity physics and building Advanced Deep Space Transports (ADST).

I recommend using a private forum rather than email or other "distribution" list formats. There are websites that let you create a private forum for free (advertisements). You/Woodward would have control over who is allowed to read/signup/post/etc. I could setup a phpBB forum on one of my servers for y'all (which would be totally free -- i.e. no annoying advertising).


Mike:

Thanks much for the forum idea.  I'll pass it on to Woodward and then see what he wants to do with it. 

"I'm skeptical but the kind of effort and dedication you have is exactly what it will take to make breakthroughs."

We keep trying, but I need a data point.  What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E?  In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer?  Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice? 

If a subset of floating suffices, then what is that thrust level threshold needed for a "Proof" and what addtional false postive tests are required to clinch the deal??  False positive tests such as Faraday shielding the M-E PZT-Stack test article and all power feed wiring, having the thrust signal being dynamically reversable and repeatable as demonstrated on Dr. Woodward's liquid metal, on center-line power fed torque pendulum, and being under vacuum and non-vacuum conditions as Woodward has already done, still doesn't seem to be enough "Proof" for most parties at the demonstrated +/-1.0 plus micro-Newton thrust levels. 

So are we now talking about the need for proof of the M-E input power to output thrust scaling rules being observed, and/or, do we need to increase thrust levels to 10 micro-Newton, 100 micro-Newton, 1.0 milli-Newton, 10 milli-Newton, or even more, and what selection critera are you using for your choices?  Or does the M-E unit really have to be a battery powered, self contained system hovering over your hand for an hour or two to put all qualms aside?? 

This latter floating senario will ultimately be doable IMO, but please remember that we are doing all of this M-E R&D work on our personal dime and time, and we can only keep chasing that "Proof" carrot for so long...

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 07/07/2011 10:55 pm

We keep trying, but I need a data point.  What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E?  In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer?  Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice? 

So are we now talking about the need for proof of the M-E input power to output thrust scaling rules being observed, and/or, do we need to increase thrust levels to 10 micro-Newton, 100 micro-Newton, 1.0 milli-Newton, 10 milli-Newton, or even more, and what selection critera are you using for your choices?  Or does the M-E unit really have to be a battery powered, self contained system hovering over your hand for an hour or two to put all qualms aside?? 

Best,

Paul M.

Demonstration of scaling rules into the milli-Newton range (say, 1 milli-Newton or so) would convince me.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 07/08/2011 12:03 am

We keep trying, but I need a data point.  What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E?  In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer?  Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice? 

So are we now talking about the need for proof of the M-E input power to output thrust scaling rules being observed, and/or, do we need to increase thrust levels to 10 micro-Newton, 100 micro-Newton, 1.0 milli-Newton, 10 milli-Newton, or even more, and what selection critera are you using for your choices?  Or does the M-E unit really have to be a battery powered, self contained system hovering over your hand for an hour or two to put all qualms aside?? 

Best,

Paul M.

Demonstration of scaling rules into the milli-Newton range (say, 1 milli-Newton or so) would convince me.

It's about the scaling compared to the noise and other factors that seem like distractors.

It's not clear to me, for instance, why the runs are done as a frequency sweep -- it seems like a distractor. Why not do the runs at a rectified constant frequency where the stack is most resonant? Wouldn't that provide the clearest "thrust" signal?

Why does the thrust noise trace trend up over the course of a run in a major way?

If the unaveraged thrust signal was about 50 times what it currently is compared to the noise, there really wouldn't be any question.

The new .pdfs are much more convincing with regard to spurious causes, but, as is constantly pointed out, it really is an extraordinary claim, so "arguably just over six sigma" doesn't really cut it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 07/08/2011 12:40 am
We keep trying, but I need a data point.  What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E?  In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer?  Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice?
Sad to say but I really haven't thought about what would constitute experimental proof of the theory (other than the obvious, "you fly into the room on a self-contained device"). Complex electrical systems, especially with moving parts, are notoriously difficult to analyze completely. That leaves your test target open to all sorts of unaccounted for sources of energy, forces, etc.

Fair or not, you're in the "extraordinary claims" arena, so you know what follows!

Quote
This latter floating senario will ultimately be doable IMO, but please remember that we are doing all of this M-E R&D work on our personal dime and time, and we can only keep chasing that "Proof" carrot for so long...
I know and that's why I hope that you gather enough experimental data to get the appropriate amount of attention (aka funding). Worst case is that you develop procedures for testing, isolation, and evaluation of these types of experiments, which I imagine will grow in number over the coming decades. That alone would justify some level of support.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/08/2011 01:49 am
The trouble is that Carl Sagan was spouting nonsense.  Why should the standard of evidence be lowered for claims that people don't find "extraordinary"?

If a certain level of evidence is good enough to be admitted in support of an accepted theory, it should be good enough to be admitted in support of an unpopular one.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/08/2011 04:37 am

We keep trying, but I need a data point.  What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E?  In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer?  Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice? 

So are we now talking about the need for proof of the M-E input power to output thrust scaling rules being observed, and/or, do we need to increase thrust levels to 10 micro-Newton, 100 micro-Newton, 1.0 milli-Newton, 10 milli-Newton, or even more, and what selection critera are you using for your choices?  Or does the M-E unit really have to be a battery powered, self contained system hovering over your hand for an hour or two to put all qualms aside?? 

Best,

Paul M.

Demonstration of scaling rules into the milli-Newton range (say, 1 milli-Newton or so) would convince me.

It's about the scaling compared to the noise and other factors that seem like distractors.

It's not clear to me, for instance, why the runs are done as a frequency sweep -- it seems like a distractor. Why not do the runs at a rectified constant frequency where the stack is most resonant? Wouldn't that provide the clearest "thrust" signal?

Why does the thrust noise trace trend up over the course of a run in a major way?

If the unaveraged thrust signal was about 50 times what it currently is compared to the noise, there really wouldn't be any question.

The new .pdfs are much more convincing with regard to spurious causes, but, as is constantly pointed out, it really is an extraordinary claim, so "arguably just over six sigma" doesn't really cut it.

Cuddihy:

"It's not clear to me, for instance, why the runs are done as a frequency sweep -- it seems like a distractor. Why not do the runs at a rectified constant frequency where the stack is most resonant? Wouldn't that provide the clearest "thrust" signal?"

The problem with the constant drive frequency approach, which Woodward followed in some of his 2002 IIT test series, see attached report, is that the mechanical resonant frequency shifts with increasing PZT-Stack temperature.  Since these EDO EC-65 PZT-Stack caps have a Dissipation Factor (DF) of over 2.0% and a thermal conductivity of only about 1/300 that of copper, they heat up very fast when dissipating the couple of hundreds of RF Watts driving them.  So it turns out that frequency sweeping the stack over the noted 9-second runs will at least show where the stack was resonant and producing the peak thrust results without depoling it due to exceeding its Curie temperature.   And it appears that the peak thrust frequency is offset from the electrical and mechanical resonant frequencies of the stack due to the electrostrictive nonlinearities in the PZT material itself and the Carvin amplifier’s output verses frequency response.  A better solution would be to design a variable frequency negative feedback loop tied to the PZT Stack temperature that would automatically keep the drive frequency at or near the PZT-Stack resonant frequency with a tunable offset of XXX Hz.  Care to design us one?

"Why does the thrust noise trace trend up over the course of a run in a major way?"

I think that is due to thermal drift in the ARC-Lite torque pendulum due to the heat being generated in the test article and being dissipated through the torque penulum's aluminum structure and bearings via IR radiation, but you need to ask Woodward for his opinion on that one as well.

"If the unaveraged thrust signal was about 50 times what it currently is compared to the noise, there really wouldn't be any question."

OK, so you vote for a +/-50-to-100 micro-Newton output thrust using the same ARC-Lite test setup since it is currently producing ~1.3 micro-Newton, check.  As a reminder my Faraday shielded MLT consistently produced a reversable +/-1,000 to 5,000 micro-Newton while it was working...

Best,

Paul M.

Edit:  Corrected typos and units
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/08/2011 04:53 am
The trouble is that Carl Sagan was spouting nonsense.  Why should the standard of evidence be lowered for claims that people don't find "extraordinary"?

If a certain level of evidence is good enough to be admitted in support of an accepted theory, it should be good enough to be admitted in support of an unpopular one.

93143:

That’s my point exactly.  Let's set a level playing field for all scientific experiments as to what constitutes "Proof" and then don't change the rules in the middle of the game just because one is unfamiliar with the topic at hand, or even worse, having a political / economic agenda that does not benefit from the particular results in question.

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/08/2011 07:16 am
Perhaps the better question to ask is what would it take for other scientists to pay attention? What would it take for them to take on the cost and effort to replicate your experiments?

Sadly, I think the answer to these questions may indeed be a hovering, self-contained, battery powered test unit. Or perhaps a pendulum demonstration.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 07/08/2011 07:45 am
Has this question been asked elsewhere... E.G. At "Physics Forum"?   I have no idea if (and if so which ones) any internet neighbourhoods or real world groups would give unfair answers.  But it seems worthwhile to sample the answers from more than just our forum here.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Lampyridae on 07/08/2011 08:25 am
The trouble is that Carl Sagan was spouting nonsense.  Why should the standard of evidence be lowered for claims that people don't find "extraordinary"?

If a certain level of evidence is good enough to be admitted in support of an accepted theory, it should be good enough to be admitted in support of an unpopular one.

Yet we have tenureships and book sales built on String Theory, which isn't even physically verifiable. Meanwhile we have GRBs which show no fine structure of the universe down to 10^-48m, 13 orders of magnitude below the Planck scale...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/08/2011 04:07 pm
The trouble is that Carl Sagan was spouting nonsense.  Why should the standard of evidence be lowered for claims that people don't find "extraordinary"?

If a certain level of evidence is good enough to be admitted in support of an accepted theory, it should be good enough to be admitted in support of an unpopular one.

Yet we have tenureships and book sales built on String Theory, which isn't even physically verifiable. Meanwhile we have GRBs which show no fine structure of the universe down to 10^-48m, 13 orders of magnitude below the Planck scale...
Lampy & Crew:

I posed my what level "Proof" question to the Woodward group and got back the following replies with the last one from a PhD Electrical Engineer on the distribution by the name of Bruce Long.  I think Bruce pretty much nailed it:

"Some thoughts:

"Short answer: "Independent replication / confirmation of observations." (Millis)

"So it just boils down to a popularity contest amongst the experimenters?" (March)

Well---uhm----Ah------YES

"There has got to be a more rational way to approach this issue..." (March)

Well --uhm ---Ah---   NO

No because in the end general acceptance is not a rational process--- it is a social process.

Geology presents a dismal example in the long nasty process that lead to the acceptance of the theory of plate tectonics despite evidence  understandable by a school child--ie the jigsaw pattern evident on a globe.

It might be useful to draw a distinction between acceptance of an experiment as valid and the acceptance of a theory as valid.

Likewise it  might be useful to draw a distinction between partial acceptance and near universal acceptance.

The first showing incremental acceptance on a spatial ( if you will) level, the second showing incremental acceptance on a temporal level.


It seems to me a clean, repeatable, convincing experiment is just about within our grasp,  general acceptance of Jim's theoretical work I believe-even with test articles hovering over the bench- is more distant.    Basically I beleive people- even "rational-logical" scientists as a whole are generally unable to abandon a world view held for a  significant fraction of a life time,and to replace it with a new paradigm. 

To support this dismal hypothesis I point to my reading of the history of acceptance of plate tectonics ( history of science term paper subject) and my personal experience trying to do turn arounds in more than one failing electronics company.

People cling to what they know and what is familiar.  They cling even tighter if they know they face failure.

Dysfunctional social structures it seems to me become stronger ( in a bad sense of the word), more  rigid and more dogmatic in the face of an existential threat.  There are numorous examples of this on the current world stage unfortunately.

But with clean, repeatable experimental evidence the transition does come.....eventually."


So we march toward making the M-E test articles be able to hover into the confernce room and the rest we leave to history.

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: IsaacKuo on 07/08/2011 06:28 pm
The trouble is that Carl Sagan was spouting nonsense.  Why should the standard of evidence be lowered for claims that people don't find "extraordinary"?

Because life is too short to apply the same standard of evidence to all claims across the board.  If I tell you that I just saw a Boeing 747 flying overhead, is it worth your time to require the same level of evidence as if I tell you that I just saw a Klingon Bird of Prey flying overhead?

It's just plain common sense.

Quote
If a certain level of evidence is good enough to be admitted in support of an accepted theory, it should be good enough to be admitted in support of an unpopular one.

You're failing to consider the fact that human civilization has a long and continuing history of false claims including mistaken beliefs, mistaken analysis, lies, distortions, and cherry picking.  Because there is a significant chance that a claim can be false, you should consider the probability that a claim is false.

Like it or not, this probability is not independent of whether or not the claim contradicts mainstream science.  The overwhelming majority of claims which contradict mainstream science are false.  So, even if the statistical significance claimed is the same percentage, the probability of a fringe claim actually being false is higher than the probability of a mainstream claim actually being false.

So, for example, suppose one scientist tells you that he's 99% certain that he saw a Boeing 747 in the air.  Suppose another scientist tells you that he's 99% certain that he saw a Klingon Bird of Prey in the air.  Not only do they make these claims, they show you photographic evidence.  Based on a statistical analysis of the signal/noise ratio of the pixels, you find that both 99% assessments are indeed accurate.

Do you honestly rate both of those claims as equally likely to be true?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/08/2011 07:03 pm

So we march toward making the M-E test articles be able to hover into the confernce room and the rest we leave to history.

Best,

Paul M.

How long do you think it will take to achieve this?

With the exception of your 2004 experiment, you guys still seem to be stuck at micronewtons.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 07/08/2011 08:24 pm

So we march toward making the M-E test articles be able to hover into the confernce room and the rest we leave to history.

Best,

Paul M.

How long do you think it will take to achieve this?

With the exception of your 2004 experiment, you guys still seem to be stuck at micronewtons.

A demonstration around 1 millinewton would convince me its real.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/08/2011 08:35 pm

So we march toward making the M-E test articles be able to hover into the confernce room and the rest we leave to history.

Best,

Paul M.

How long do you think it will take to achieve this?

With the exception of your 2004 experiment, you guys still seem to be stuck at micronewtons.

A demonstration around 1 millinewton would convince me its real.

GeeGee:

It should occur this fall with my MLT-2011 self-contained test article.

Kurt9:

1.0 milli-Newton under what circumstances?  My STAIF-2006 paper already demonstrated reversible MLT generated forces well over your 1.0 milli-Newton threshold requirement.

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/08/2011 09:29 pm
The trouble is that Carl Sagan was spouting nonsense.  Why should the standard of evidence be lowered for claims that people don't find "extraordinary"?

Because life is too short to apply the same standard of evidence to all claims across the board.  If I tell you that I just saw a Boeing 747 flying overhead, is it worth your time to require the same level of evidence as if I tell you that I just saw a Klingon Bird of Prey flying overhead?

It's just plain common sense.

Yes, it's plain common sense.  What it is not is science.

Obviously the claim of seeing the 747 is more likely.  But if the BoP can be faked, so can the 747 - probably even more easily, in fact.  So the photographic evidence for the 747 does not actually constitute a higher degree of proof than the one for the BoP.

We can believe the 747 claim because it isn't perceived as intrinsically unlikely, and it saves mental effort.  Also because it probably isn't particularly important to be right.  But doing this in science is called "confirmation bias" and is a bad thing.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: IsaacKuo on 07/08/2011 10:05 pm
Because life is too short to apply the same standard of evidence to all claims across the board.  If I tell you that I just saw a Boeing 747 flying overhead, is it worth your time to require the same level of evidence as if I tell you that I just saw a Klingon Bird of Prey flying overhead?

It's just plain common sense.

Yes, it's plain common sense.  What it is not is science.

It is absolutely necessary in science.

Quote
Obviously the claim of seeing the 747 is more likely.  But if the BoP can be faked, so can the 747 - probably even more easily, in fact.  So the photographic evidence for the 747 does not actually constitute a higher degree of proof than the one for the BoP.

Correct.  And Sagan's correct point is that the 747 does not need a higher degree of proof, while the Klingon BoP does need a higher degree of proof.

Quote
We can believe the 747 claim because it isn't perceived as intrinsically unlikely, and it saves mental effort.  Also because it probably isn't particularly important to be right.  But doing this in science is called "confirmation bias" and is a bad thing.

Confirmation bias is an inherent feature of science.  Like it or not, science is inherently conservative with a large degree of inertia.  If there are a thousand confirmations of various predictions of relativity, then scientist's don't test to make sure it's valid every time they perform an experiment that uses a particle accelerator.  They assume it's valid, and use the theory to make calculations.  Without making these assumptions, science wouldn't be able to progress beyond the most basic observations.

If someone publishes a paper confirming predictions of relativity, this does not attract much scrutiny or attention.  But if someone publishes a paper refuting preductions of relativity, this is greeted with skepticism and is generally either scrutinized or dismissed.  Yes, this is an example of confirmation bias.  It's also how science has to work.  It just couldn't be any other way.

Too much confirmation bias can certainly be a bad thing, but science needs a degree of confirmation bias just to function.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/08/2011 10:56 pm
You're conflating two different things.

You can go ahead and assume the prevailing theory is correct when you use it as a basis for other stuff, like your particle accelerator example.  (Or like the Mach Effect work, which assumes GRT is correct.)  You CANNOT assume the prevailing theory is correct when you are attempting to demonstrate that it is.

Confirmation bias, properly understood, is NOT necessary, except in the sense that it is unavoidable.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 07/08/2011 10:59 pm
edit- more concisely said above by 93143

Extraordinary evidence is only required if the status quo or conventions it challenges is extraordinarily well established.

It's one thing to move forward on some experiment based on a single confirmation bias assumption, but it's another to continue stacking assumptions on top of one another as you would by assuming e.g. that the laws of nature rule out Mach Effect conjecture and that therefore Mach Effect is unfounded and therefore requires an (assumed!) extraordinary burden of proof.

Because you (understandably) never went out and confirmed the full landscape of that assumed ME-excluding System Of The World, it's only an assumption that ME phenom as conjectured are fictive.  Why should that conjecture require extraordinary burden of proof when the burden of proof for the preceding assumption (a system of the world that excludes ME) hasn't even been fully satisfied?  Hasn't been fully satisfied but merely assumed.

In fact ME reportedly is rooted in just such a local fog of war, so to speak.  The origins of inertia are still new territory and ME conjecture plumbs into that fog in accordance with already established un-extraordinary conjectures.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: IsaacKuo on 07/08/2011 11:10 pm
You're conflating two different things.

You can go ahead and assume the prevailing theory is correct when you use it as a basis for other stuff, like your particle accelerator example.  (Or like the Mach Effect work, which assumes GRT is correct.)  You CANNOT assume the prevailing theory is correct when you are attempting to demonstrate that it is.

Confirmation bias, properly understood, is NOT necessary, except in the sense that it is unavoidable.

No, that's not confirmation bias.  That's circular reasoning.

Confirmation bias is a bias to either accept things that confirm your beliefs or disregard things that don't confirm your beliefs.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: IsaacKuo on 07/08/2011 11:23 pm
Because you (understandably) never went out and confirmed the full landscape of that assumed ME-excluding System Of The World, it's only an assumption that ME phenom as conjectured are fictive.

I haven't stated any opinion about this ME conjecture one way or another.

I am not a theoretical physicist.  I don't understand what in the world mainstream physicists are talking about when they get technical, so I know I wouldn't even be able to tell mainstream from fringe physics.

I do know that I'm not really interested in this thruster.  Even if it works as advertised, its performance would be on the order of other electric thrusters.  My interests lie in vastly different performance regimes.

As for the potential to revolutionize theoretical physics?  Like I said, I am not a theoretical physicist.  I don't even comprehend the Standard Model.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/08/2011 11:24 pm
If transient mass fluctuations were being studied without the mention of applications to advanced propulsion, they would not even be regarded as an extraordinary claim. They would be held to the same standard of evidence as every other testable hypothesis in physics that does not violate the laws of physics. As soon as you mention words like "propellantless" or "reactionless" propulsion, eyebrows start to raise, and your hypothesis has been tossed in with the likes of ghosts and UFO's, requiring extraordinary evidence to satisfy an "extraordinary" claim.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 07/08/2011 11:39 pm
Isaac - That was general "you"

If it works as advertized we get weekend roadtrip times for Moon destinations, and everything from Mars to Saturn within about a week's travel time.  I cannot see how this is not interesting.  And engine that gives you constant 1G like that is plenty for now, plenty to kick start colonization, along with a flurry of other significant applications.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/08/2011 11:39 pm
You're conflating two different things.

You can go ahead and assume the prevailing theory is correct when you use it as a basis for other stuff, like your particle accelerator example.  (Or like the Mach Effect work, which assumes GRT is correct.)  You CANNOT assume the prevailing theory is correct when you are attempting to demonstrate that it is.

Confirmation bias, properly understood, is NOT necessary, except in the sense that it is unavoidable.

No, that's not confirmation bias.  That's circular reasoning.

Okay, I overstated it somewhat.

What I meant is that if you are more likely to accept evidence that the current theory is right than accept equally valid evidence that it is wrong, then you are subject to confirmation bias, which can harm the science if it leaks into the methodology or the interpretation of the results.  It is in no way good or necessary.

Assuming a well-founded theory is correct when attempting to build something else on it is an entirely different thing, and completely reasonable.

It's a rather fine philosophical point, I suppose...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 07/08/2011 11:55 pm

Cuddihy:

"It's not clear to me, for instance, why the runs are done as a frequency sweep -- it seems like a distractor. Why not do the runs at a rectified constant frequency where the stack is most resonant? Wouldn't that provide the clearest "thrust" signal?"

The problem with the constant drive frequency approach, which Woodward followed in some of his 2002 IIT test series, see attached report, is that the mechanical resonant frequency shifts with increasing PZT-Stack temperature.  Since these EDO EC-65 PZT-Stack caps have a Dissipation Factor (DF) of over 2.0% and a thermal conductivity of only about 1/300 that of copper, they heat up very fast when dissipating the couple of hundreds of RF Watts driving them.  So it turns out that frequency sweeping the stack over the noted 9-second runs will at least show where the stack was resonant and producing the peak thrust results without depoling it due to exceeding its Curie temperature.   And it appears that the peak thrust frequency is offset from the electrical and mechanical resonant frequencies of the stack due to the electrostrictive nonlinearities in the PZT material itself and the Carvin amplifier’s output verses frequency response.  A better solution would be to design a variable frequency negative feedback loop tied to the PZT Stack temperature that would automatically keep the drive frequency at or near the PZT-Stack resonant frequency with a tunable offset of XXX Hz.  Care to design us one?

"Why does the thrust noise trace trend up over the course of a run in a major way?"

I think that is due to thermal drift in the ARC-Lite torque pendulum due to the heat being generated in the test article and being dissipated through the torque penulum's aluminum structure and bearings via IR radiation, but you need to ask Woodward for his opinion on that one as well.

"If the unaveraged thrust signal was about 50 times what it currently is compared to the noise, there really wouldn't be any question."

OK, so you vote for a +/-50-to-100 micro-Newton output thrust using the same ARC-Lite test setup since it is currently producing ~1.3 micro-Newton, check.  As a reminder my Faraday shielded MLT consistently produced a reversable +/-1,000 to 5,000 micro-Newton while it was working...

Best,

Paul M.

Edit:  Corrected typos and units

Thanks for the detailed answer on the frequency sweep.

Absolutely, on the  1-5 mN response of your MLT being more than sufficient if the noise level is similar to Woodward's data above & the spurious sources is as clearly eliminated.

The issue is not the total level of thrust as discussed, but the signal to noise ratio. Since it is a new or unknown phenomenon that we are talking about, of course a higher standard is needed in order to be sure the cause is not a conventional source via an unknown coupling or pathway.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/09/2011 12:10 am
Since it is a new or unknown phenomenon that we are talking about, of course a higher standard is needed in order to be sure the cause is not a conventional source via an unknown coupling or pathway.

And this is what I'm complaining about.  Why should a conventionally-understood phenomenon be subject to a relaxed standard of observational rigour?  How do you know the signal you get in that case isn't an artifact of poor experimental design?

If a certain level of "proof" is good enough to support an existing theory, why isn't it good enough to support a novel proposal?  Or, to put it the other way around, if it isn't good enough to support a novel proposal, why is it admissible in support of the consensus?

...

Sagan's quote makes some sense in a case where the preponderance of evidence is actually against a novel claim.  You've got a wall to scale there, though even there the standard of evidence should be the same on both sides.  But if the claim is merely not supported by existing theory and prior evidence, its unfamiliarity should be no bar to acceptance of valid evidence in support of it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: IsaacKuo on 07/09/2011 12:53 am
And engine that gives you constant 1G like that is plenty for now,

As I understand it, the claimed accelerations are far smaller than 1 gee.  The accelerations in the claims so far are small enough that others attribute them to conventional forces.

If it's so easy to demonstrate 1 gee, then that should be demonstrated.  It would be impossible to dismiss.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: IsaacKuo on 07/09/2011 12:56 am
If transient mass fluctuations were being studied without the mention of applications to advanced propulsion, they would not even be regarded as an extraordinary claim.

Are there examples of mass fluctuations in mainstream physics?  I'm aware of various fringe claims of mass reduction, but as I understand mainstream physics, mass is conserved.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/09/2011 12:56 am
If it's so easy to demonstrate 1 gee, then that should be demonstrated.  It would be impossible to dismiss.

It's not easy because it requires substantial scaling up in frequency, voltage, etc., as well as design refinements in the thrusters.  (It wouldn't hurt to come up with a dielectric that lasted longer than fifteen minutes under the current experimental conditions without annealing, either.)

These people are garage tinkerers, basically.  They have no budget.  But the projected scaling laws make the proponents think that such numbers as 1 N/W and a T/W of 10 or more are plausible with enough focused, well-funded engineering.  If they're right, it isn't just space travel that would undergo a paradigm shift...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/09/2011 04:36 am
If it's so easy to demonstrate 1 gee, then that should be demonstrated.  It would be impossible to dismiss.

It's not easy because it requires substantial scaling up in frequency, voltage, etc., as well as design refinements in the thrusters.  (It wouldn't hurt to come up with a dielectric that lasted longer than fifteen minutes under the current experimental conditions without annealing, either.)

These people are garage tinkerers, basically.  They have no budget.  But the projected scaling laws make the proponents think that such numbers as 1 N/W and a T/W of 10 or more are plausible with enough focused, well-funded engineering.  If they're right, it isn't just space travel that would undergo a paradigm shift...

Are there examples of mass fluctuations in mainstream physics?  I'm aware of various fringe claims of mass reduction, but as I understand mainstream physics, mass is conserved.

I believe this theory separates inertial mass from real or gravitating mass.  Not sure how it's supposed to result in wormholes, though perhaps I've misunderstood or misremembered something...

93143:

I'm going to append the abstract of Woodward's yet to be published Stargate paper below, and if you look at your e-mail in-basket...

Making Stargates: the Science of
Absurdly Benign Wormholes

James F. Woodward
Department of Physics
California State University, Fullerton, CA 92834
657-278-3596; [email protected]

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
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 07/09/2011 05:22 am
Quote
I believe this theory separates inertial mass from real or gravitating mass.

Right, and this is the essence of the problem with M-E propulsion.  Unfortunately, it seems to be impossible to create distributions of gravitational mass/energy that would satisfy the interesting physics required to significantly alter the inertial mass.  Basically, some form of negative mass/energy is needed, and classically this is forbidden.

The real doozy is that if you could create negative energy matter then all sorts of exotic applications would be available.  No non-standard theory of inertia is required.

I think Woodward now realizes this, and hence his call out for new theory.  (The current theory is the scientific version of "begging the question".)

Quote
We keep trying, but I need a data point.  What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E?  In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer?  Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice?

What would make M-E interesting to other (theoretical) physicists is a theory of it that is consistent with other known physical phenomena.  The problem is that physicists have done all these pesky things called "experiments" that have tested large amounts of parameter space.  If you want to extend the currently accepted knowledge of how things work, you need to find a way to not be in conflict with all those results.  (Or at least show where those results were misinterpreted.)

Merely having an interesting experiment is not enough in this case.  Unfortunately, systematic error here seems to be orders of magnitude larger than the magnitude of the effect that is predicted.   Someone needs to accurately calculate what traditional physics predicts.  Remember, the real world isn't filled with spherical cows.  The PZ oscillator can have non-linearities.  There can be capacitance and inductance between separate parts of the apparatus giving forces much larger than those you wish to detect.  The sound from the PZ can resonate in strange ways with other components.  Small 1/c^2 effects can be much larger or as large as the force you wish to detect.  These things are not ignorable, even though you might like them to be.

Remember the Pioneer Anomaly.  There were many papers written about it assuming that it must mean that something was wrong with fundamental physics.  However, recently it was shown that "simple" anisotropic thermal radiation pressure was enough to explain everything about it.  Nature doesn't seem to be particularly amiable in allowing new improved descriptions of herself.

Of course, if you do manage to come up with a floating self-contained device.  It doesn't matter what the theory is (or if indeed any exists at all); as long as it is reproducible, it is useful.  Everyone is looking forward to their hoverboards and flying cars in 2015 after all...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: IsaacKuo on 07/09/2011 06:50 am
It's not easy because it requires substantial scaling up in frequency, voltage, etc., as well as design refinements in the thrusters.  (It wouldn't hurt to come up with a dielectric that lasted longer than fifteen minutes under the current experimental conditions without annealing, either.)

These people are garage tinkerers, basically.  They have no budget.  But the projected scaling laws make the proponents think that such numbers as 1 N/W and a T/W of 10 or more are plausible with enough focused, well-funded engineering.  If they're right, it isn't just space travel that would undergo a paradigm shift...

[...]

I believe this theory separates inertial mass from real or gravitating mass.  Not sure how it's supposed to result in wormholes, though perhaps I've misunderstood or misremembered something...

These really do sound like extraordinary fringe claims to me, that really do require extraordinary evidence.

Since I'm no theoretical physicist and thus can't form a properly informed assessment of my own, there's no way to convince me directly with some subtle disputed experimental results.  It would have to be indirectly by convincing the scientific community which I trust.

Until then, it has the same ring of untruth to me as various discredited claims such as the Dean drive, overunity devices, cold fusion, Joseph Newman's energy machine, and such.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 07/09/2011 08:21 am
Extraordinary, unlike ... which un-extraordinary conjecture for the origins of inertia?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: IsaacKuo on 07/09/2011 10:48 am
Extraordinary, unlike ... which un-extraordinary conjecture for the origins of inertia?

According to you, what extraordinary claims result from the theory that inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass?

Like I said, you won't be able to directly convince me, because I know I lack sufficient comprehension of theoretical physics to properly evaluate the theory.  All I really know is that the mainstream scientific community finds the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass to be uncontroversial and experimentally confirmed.  But I don't comprehend the subtleties of the theoretical ramifications or the fine subtleties of the experimental verification.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/09/2011 03:32 pm
Quote
I believe this theory separates inertial mass from real or gravitating mass.

Right, and this is the essence of the problem with M-E propulsion.  Unfortunately, it seems to be impossible to create distributions of gravitational mass/energy that would satisfy the interesting physics required to significantly alter the inertial mass.  Basically, some form of negative mass/energy is needed, and classically this is forbidden.

The real doozy is that if you could create negative energy matter then all sorts of exotic applications would be available.  No non-standard theory of inertia is required.

I think Woodward now realizes this, and hence his call out for new theory.  (The current theory is the scientific version of "begging the question".)

Quote
We keep trying, but I need a data point.  What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E?  In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer?  Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice?

What would make M-E interesting to other (theoretical) physicists is a theory of it that is consistent with other known physical phenomena.  The problem is that physicists have done all these pesky things called "experiments" that have tested large amounts of parameter space.  If you want to extend the currently accepted knowledge of how things work, you need to find a way to not be in conflict with all those results.  (Or at least show where those results were misinterpreted.)

Merely having an interesting experiment is not enough in this case.  Unfortunately, systematic error here seems to be orders of magnitude larger than the magnitude of the effect that is predicted.   Someone needs to accurately calculate what traditional physics predicts.  Remember, the real world isn't filled with spherical cows.  The PZ oscillator can have non-linearities.  There can be capacitance and inductance between separate parts of the apparatus giving forces much larger than those you wish to detect.  The sound from the PZ can resonate in strange ways with other components.  Small 1/c^2 effects can be much larger or as large as the force you wish to detect.  These things are not ignorable, even though you might like them to be.

Remember the Pioneer Anomaly.  There were many papers written about it assuming that it must mean that something was wrong with fundamental physics.  However, recently it was shown that "simple" anisotropic thermal radiation pressure was enough to explain everything about it.  Nature doesn't seem to be particularly amiable in allowing new improved descriptions of herself.

Of course, if you do manage to come up with a floating self-contained device.  It doesn't matter what the theory is (or if indeed any exists at all); as long as it is reproducible, it is useful.  Everyone is looking forward to their hoverboards and flying cars in 2015 after all...

931423: “I believe this theory separates inertial mass from real or gravitating mass.”

Fuerst: “Right, and this is the essence of the problem with M-E propulsion.”

I’m going to append the beginning of Woodward’s “Flux Capacitors and the Origins of Inertia” paper’s “Appendix A”  that you already have below, as a reminder to you that the M-E does NOT violate Einstein’s Equivalence principle between gravitational and inertial effects, no matter what others on this NSF forum might think:

“To derive Equation (6) one considers a “test particle” (one with sufficiently small mass that it does not itself contributes directly to the field being investigated) in a universe of uniform matter density.  We act on the test particle by, say, attaching an electric charge to it and place in between the plates of a capacitor that can be a charged with suitable external apparatus.  That is, we accelerate the test particle by applying an external force.  The acceleration, via Newton’s third law, produces an inertial reaction force in the test particle that acts on the accelerating agent.  In view of the Machian nature of GRT and Sciama’s analysis of the origin of inertia, we see that the inertial reaction force produced in these circumstances is just the action of the gravitational field of the chiefly distant matter in the universe on the test particle as it is accelerated.  So we can write the field strength of the gravitational action on the test particle as the inertial reaction force it experiences divided by the mass of the test particle (since a field strength is a force per unit charge, the “charge” in this case being mass).  Actually, the standard form of field equations are expressed in terms of charge densities, so one has to do a volumetric division to get the force per unit mass expression into standard form.  There are two critically important points to take into account here.  The first is that the mass density that enters the field equation so constructed is the matter density of the test particle, not the matter density of the uniformly distributed cosmic matter that causes the inertial reaction force.  The second point is that in order to satisfy Lorentz invariance, this calculation is done using the four-vectors of relativistic spacetime, not the three-vectors of classical space and time.  Formally, we make two assumptions:

1. Inertial reaction forces in objects subjected to accelerations are produced by the interaction of the accelerated objects with a field – they are not the immediate consequence only of some inherent property of the object.  And from GRT and Sciama’s vector approximation argument, we know that the field in question is the gravitational field generated by the rest of the matter in the universe.

2. Any acceptable physical theory must be locally Lorentz-invariant; that is, in sufficiently small regions of spacetime special relativity theory (SRT) must obtain.”


If the M-E conjecture is Lorentz invariant and salutes SRT and it does on both counts, you know by definition that it observes the gravity/inertia Equivalence principle as well. 

Fuerst:  “Unfortunately, it seems to be impossible to create distributions of gravitational mass/energy that would satisfy the interesting physics required to significantly alter the inertial mass. Basically, some form of negative mass/energy is needed, and classically this is forbidden.”

Please READ and understand Woodward’s “Twists of Fate” (see attached), and Jim's latest Stargate paper before making such statements.  If you need a copy of Woodward's latest Stargate paper, just send him an e-mail requesting one.

Second point, Woodward was extending the olive branch to his ZPE critics in the hopes of forging a more coherent intellectual front for all parties interested in advancing the propulsion arts.  Funding agencies get confused when there is more than one viewpoint being expressed in the room.  Jim was NOT repudiating his M-E conjecture.

Lastly, agreed on the need for higher thusts in the M-E experimental realm so as to do away with the doubts surrounding measured forces in the micro-Newton range.  Milli-Newtons or even larger are a must have dependent on the summation magnitude of all known error sources.

Best,

Paul M. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/09/2011 03:36 pm
Quote
I believe this theory separates inertial mass from real or gravitating mass.  Not sure how it's supposed to result in wormholes, though perhaps I've misunderstood or misremembered something...

I was actually fishing for data (a bit lazy of me, I guess).

Looks like I caught some...  thanks.

I did think I remembered some such distinction, but I couldn't remember what it was...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 07/09/2011 05:41 pm

A demonstration around 1 millinewton would convince me its real.

GeeGee:

It should occur this fall with my MLT-2011 self-contained test article.

Kurt9:

1.0 milli-Newton under what circumstances?  My STAIF-2006 paper already demonstrated reversible MLT generated forces well over your 1.0 milli-Newton threshold requirement.

Best,

Paul M.

Your STAIF-2006 paper, is this the work you did with Andrew Palfreyman that includes the spreadsheet, a sample of which is in the presentation for AIAA at JSC in 2006?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 07/09/2011 06:50 pm
Quote
I’m going to append the beginning of Woodward’s “Flux Capacitors and the Origins of Inertia” paper’s “Appendix A”  that you already have below, as a reminder to you that the M-E does NOT violate Einstein’s Equivalence principle between gravitational and inertial effects, no matter what others on this NSF forum might think:

Paul, this isn't the problem.  The issues with M-E propulsion have nothing to do with the theory of inertia!  Any theory at all will do, so long as it couples to the gravitational mass/energy distribution.

The issue is one of engineering.  You simply cannot construct a gravitational mass/energy distribution that will have a time-varying monopole or dipole moment.  To do so requires you to be able to create negative gravitational mass/energy.

The current propulsion model tries to use a matter dipole... but it has a mistake where important terms are left out.  Add those terms, and the purported dipole disappears.

Physically, the lowest multipole order that is possible is the quadrapole.  This unfortunately lowers the magnitude of any effect enormously.  The need for a varying quadrapole moment is a very well known result.  Trying to ignore it doesn't do the M-E folks any favours.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 07/09/2011 07:14 pm
I like the last 2 paper of yours, thank you.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 07/09/2011 07:56 pm

Physically, the lowest multipole order that is possible is the quadrapole.  This unfortunately lowers the magnitude of any effect enormously.  The need for a varying quadrapole moment is a very well known result.  Trying to ignore it doesn't do the M-E folks any favours.

Dr Fuerst,

Could you point to a reference that explains or at least expands on the above for us newbs to SRT/GRT?

thanks.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 07/09/2011 08:31 pm
Quote
Could you point to a reference that explains or at least expands on the above for us newbs to SRT/GRT?

The beginning of Chapter 36 of MTW's Gravitation covers it in detail.  You can derive it in a couple of ways.  The simplest is from conservation of momentum and angular momentum.  Deeper insight comes from using topology and Brouwer's fixed point theorem to show the difference between the propagation of scalar, vector and tensor fields.

Scalar fields have monopole radiation.
Vector fields (electromagnetism) have dipole radiation.
Tensor fields (GR) have quadrupolar radiation. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 07/09/2011 10:06 pm
Quote
Could you point to a reference that explains or at least expands on the above for us newbs to SRT/GRT?

The beginning of Chapter 36 of MTW's Gravitation covers it in detail.  You can derive it in a couple of ways.  The simplest is from conservation of momentum and angular momentum.  Deeper insight comes from using topology and Brouwer's fixed point theorem to show the difference between the propagation of scalar, vector and tensor fields.

Scalar fields have monopole radiation.
Vector fields (electromagnetism) have dipole radiation.
Tensor fields (GR) have quadrupolar radiation. 

Thanks!

Holy Moly, the book's 38 years old & it still costs $55 bucks, used on Amazon.

I'm very interested, so I guess I'll have to bite the bullet.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 07/09/2011 10:45 pm
There are other books that are possibly better.  The one by Wald comes to mind.  MTW was just handy at the moment.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 07/10/2011 03:01 am
Thanks
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/10/2011 04:11 am
There are other books that are possibly better.  The one by Wald comes to mind.  MTW was just handy at the moment.

Steve & Cuddihy:

When it comes to books on gravity, my preference is for Ciufolini and Wheeler's "Gravitation and Inertia".

http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Inertia-Ignazio-Ciufolini/dp/0691033234/ref=pd_sim_b_5 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/10/2011 06:02 am
Physically, the lowest multipole order that is possible is the quadrapole.  This unfortunately lowers the magnitude of any effect enormously.  The need for a varying quadrapole moment is a very well known result.  Trying to ignore it doesn't do the M-E folks any favours.

Not sure if you caught it, but Woodward responded to this in an e-mail sent to Paul posted a few pages back.

"What von Feurst says to you about gravity waves is, of course, correct.  In the standard calculation the lowest order freely propagating at infinity term is the quadrupole term.  And it is minuscule.

The "problem" here is that in standard GR, inertial reaction forces are not considered to be gravitational in origin, notwithstanding that Sciama's calculation (and one done by Nordtvedt in the 1980s on "linear accelerative frame dragging") show that when the universe is taken to be "rigidly" accelerating in some direction past a local object, it exerts a force on the object (if it is constrained to not participate in the acceleration) that is just the inertial reaction force when phi/c^2 is roughly one.

Since inertial reaction forces are acceleration dependent, a radiative process is involved.  And since inertial reaction forces are decades of orders of magnitude larger than the sort of radiation reaction forces of standard gravity wave analysis, the source of von Feurst's comments is straight-forward.  "Mach effects" are just Newtonian order tansients in the much larger inertial reaction force picture, as you note."

Also just a suggestion but I think it would be best to state your objections directly to Woodward since he is the one who derived the M-E.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 07/10/2011 06:15 am
Extraordinary, unlike ... which un-extraordinary conjecture for the origins of inertia?

According to you, what extraordinary claims result from the theory that inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass?

Like I said, you won't be able to directly convince me, because I know I lack sufficient comprehension of theoretical physics to properly evaluate the theory.  All I really know is that the mainstream scientific community finds the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass to be uncontroversial and experimentally confirmed.  But I don't comprehend the subtleties of the theoretical ramifications or the fine subtleties of the experimental verification.
I'm not looking to convince you. That's the second time you say that.

I'm asking/putting this to you:  what about the current explanation for the origins of inertia makes e.g. Sciama's conjecture extraordinary?  From very faint memory reading Feynman's lectures, the "mainstream" conjecture for the origins of inertia are comparably vague and tentative. Hence the "fog" analogy. That we haven't noticed any need to improve on them, to my layman sense of impartiality, seems like people a few centuries ago being skeptical of our modern refinements of the laws of physics. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 07/10/2011 06:37 am
Not only that, but my comment that was being responded to (regarding separating different types/definitions of mass) was just a dredged-up half-memory, likely mistaken; it really shouldn't be used as a point of attack...

In fact, I'll remove it, since it seems to have done more harm than good.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 07/10/2011 08:36 am
TBH the only thing I truly believe in myself is that we should build these and see.  No simpler way to settle the matter and to Mach Effect Thrusters' credit they sound pretty darn cheap to build proof of concepts for, compared to any potentially revolutionary technologies I can think of.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/10/2011 03:06 pm
Extraordinary, unlike ... which un-extraordinary conjecture for the origins of inertia?

According to you, what extraordinary claims result from the theory that inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass?

Like I said, you won't be able to directly convince me, because I know I lack sufficient comprehension of theoretical physics to properly evaluate the theory.  All I really know is that the mainstream scientific community finds the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass to be uncontroversial and experimentally confirmed.  But I don't comprehend the subtleties of the theoretical ramifications or the fine subtleties of the experimental verification.
I'm not looking to convince you. That's the second time you say that.

I'm asking/putting this to you:  what about the current explanation for the origins of inertia makes e.g. Sciama's conjecture extraordinary?  From very faint memory reading Feynman's lectures, the "mainstream" conjecture for the origins of inertia are comparably vague and tentative. Hence the "fog" analogy. That we haven't noticed any need to improve on them, to my layman sense of impartiality, seems like people a few centuries ago being skeptical of our modern refinements of the laws of physics. 

Folks:

Steve F. may not see this yet, but IMO his concentration on monopole, dipole or quadrupole radiation is missing the point that if we are to explain the origins of inertia, and the possible transient effects that appear to surround it, we have to first acknowledge that there is NO accepted theory of inertia yet per Cinder's fog analogy.  And depending on the inertia model we pick, that model could drastically affect how inertia effects are created, conveyed and/or transmitted throughout the cosmos.  We also have to acknowledge the fact that inertial reaction forces are only expressed under an acceleration of a confined volume of mass/energy, and that the onset of these inertial reaction forces are instantaneous, as expressed by Newton's third law.  The latter point is not an opinion, but an observed fact. 

Based on the work of Newton, Mach, Einstein, Sciama, Nordtvedt and more current contributors, Woodward posits that Newtonian inertial reactions forces have to be based on Mach’s principle and that these effectively instantaneous inertial radiation reactions forces are developed in the universe's causally connected gravitational field.  These assumptions demands that we finally accept the reality of J. C. Maxwell’s E&M propagation equation’s plus AND minus in time solutions, and by analogy, in gravitation based effects as well.  Now I won’t go into the dither that the practioners of the mainstream physics community go into whenever they discuss cause and effect issues surrounding Maxwell’s plus & minus E&M propagation solutions as well as the related Wheeler/Feynman Absorber Theory, other than to say they both provide a possible means to accomplish “Spooky Action at a Distance” that is demanded by the expression of inertia in a Machian Universe.   However that still leaves the problem that Steve F. raised, and that is what should the characteristics of a tensor based, gravitational radiation be that are generated by accelerated quantities of mass/energy?  Especially when considering that their backwards AND forward in time propagation solutions have to be taken into account as well.  A solution that has to provide us the observed instantaneous AND large reaction forces we experience every time we make something move?

I don’t have an immediate answer to this question, but I do know that Woodward is working on one as I type this.  If I have to take a guess at his answer though, I’ll bet that it is wrapped around the atemporal nature of inertial reaction forces.  This implies that the very small and retarded quadrupolar gravitational radiation “pilot wave” emitted by a local chunk of accelerated mass/energy will have to be summed with the very large advanced quadrupolar gravitational return wave coming back from all the rest of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe.  Hmmm, and I’m now wondering what the antenna pattern would be of such an atemporal quadrupolar gravity wave interaction…

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/10/2011 03:18 pm
TBH the only thing I truly believe in myself is that we should build these and see.  No simpler way to settle the matter and to Mach Effect Thrusters' credit they sound pretty darn cheap to build proof of concepts for, compared to any potentially revolutionary technologies I can think of.

Cinder:

"Simple" devices often turn out NOT to be as simple in practice as Woodward and his Crew have found out to their chagrin over the last 20 years.  If you need another example of this, just look at the Cold Fusion fiasco where a lot of unprepared folks thought that the 1988 Ponds and Flashmann experiment was "simple" to replicate, but then found out that it wasn't.  However if you are willing to EXACTLY duplicate the best example of the experiment in question, you have a shot of duplicating the results.  And that takes some inital and detailed collaboration with the original experimenter.

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 07/10/2011 04:25 pm
Quote
we have to first acknowledge that there is NO accepted theory of inertia yet per Cinder's fog analogy.

That isn't quite true.  General Relativity explains its origins in an indirect manner.  Since the equations of motion are derivable from G_ab=8\piT_ab, the amount of acceleration as a function of mass is hidden in there if you want to find it.

Woodard and Co. do not have a monopoly in explaining inertia by any means.

My point is that it doesn't matter what theory of inertia (or gravity) you take.  Try it.  No matter which one you choose, you have a choice between allowing/requiring negative mass/energy, or have quadrupole radiation as the lowest order coupling.  (Or have a theory of gravity that doesn't gravitate... but we'll ignore those.)

If you allow the creation of negative energy, it is trivially easy to make a propulsion device.  No need to use oscillators at all.  All you need is a rigid rod to separate equal masses of opposite sign.

Trying to split the coupling into a sum of advanced and retarded waves is pointless.  The mathematical results are the same, just your interpretation of those results differs.  It becomes a matter of philosophy rather than science.  (You can't determine locally which direction in time a null-wave is travelling, since it experiences no time.)

Quote
Not sure if you caught it, but Woodward responded to this in an e-mail sent to Paul posted a few pages back.

Actually, I did catch it, and did respond to that point.  Dragging of inertial frames in GR is extremely well known.  I used to model photons within the Kerr space-time, where the ergosphere contains extreme frame-dragging. 

The problem is that the issue with M-E propulsion is gravity theory agnostic.  It is step 1 (initial gravitational mass/energy distribution) that is broken, we don't even get to step 2 (applying a gravity theory).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Eric_S on 07/10/2011 08:43 pm
Quote
we have to first acknowledge that there is NO accepted theory of inertia yet per Cinder's fog analogy.

That isn't quite true.  General Relativity explains its origins in an indirect manner.  Since the equations of motion are derivable from G_ab=8\piT_ab, the amount of acceleration as a function of mass is hidden in there if you want to find it.

Woodard and Co. do not have a monopoly in explaining inertia by any means.

My point is that it doesn't matter what theory of inertia (or gravity) you take.  Try it.  No matter which one you choose, you have a choice between allowing/requiring negative mass/energy, or have quadrupole radiation as the lowest order coupling.  (Or have a theory of gravity that doesn't gravitate... but we'll ignore those.)

If you allow the creation of negative energy, it is trivially easy to make a propulsion device.  No need to use oscillators at all.  All you need is a rigid rod to separate equal masses of opposite sign.


First of all, thank you for your insight sfuerst!

Is there a particular reason why negative mass isn't allowed (causality problems that may arise)? Is there some phenomenon that should exist given that negative mass is allowed, but be can't see signs of it and thus ==> we are forced to use a quadropole ==> ME theory falls (sadly).

Copys of Gravitation by MTW and GR by Wald are on my to buy list for my little science, engineering and maths library. But that won't be untill my salary rolls in the 25th, and then shipping, taking the time to read and understand them.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Eric_S on 07/10/2011 09:09 pm
What I'm trying to get to here is the following:

- Is there a something that says that negative mass is forbidden (natural phenomena / experiments)? Then the ME-teory goes down the drain as I understand you.

- Is it forbiden due to causality? Then there _may_ still be room for it, as long as it doesn't have the chance of actually transmitting information faster than light? Ie the creepier parts of ME-theory; that states that you can drain the universe of energy if a certain term grows large enough and allows for spacedrives to be made, are rendered invalid by some intrinsict protection mechanism of the universe. But the parts that allow you to make "hoverboards" and hovercars" may still work.

The explanations on why it isn't a mathematical necessity are much apreciated. As is the reminder that Woodward isn't the only one thinking about the origin of inertia.

[ed]

Thought that this might needed to be reposted (from sfuerst):

Quote
Due to
conservation of energy/momentum, monopole and dipole mass/energy
fluctuations do not exist in General Relativity.  If you wish to
radiate gravitational waves, you need to have a varying quadrapole
moment.  If a theory of gravity predicts dipole (or the required
monopole) radiation, then it has been ruled out by experimental
gravity wave searches.

[/ed]
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/10/2011 09:20 pm
What I'm trying to get to here is the following:

- Is there a something that says that negative mass is forbidden (natural phenomena / experiments)? Then the ME-teory goes down the drain as I understand you.

There is something called the quantum inequalities conjecture that apparently limits how much exotic matter you can produce, but I've seen a couple papers on this that show this isn't true, i.e.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0207057
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 07/10/2011 09:21 pm
Quote
Is there a particular reason why negative mass isn't allowed (causality problems that may arise)?

The problem isn't that negative mass isn't allowed.  The problem is that we don't know how to make any.  The closest we have is the Casimir effect, where the vacuum between the conducting plates has a lower energy than normal.  However, the mass-energy in the plates themselves greatly outweighs any negative energy between them, so the total is always positive. :-/

If you could make matter with negative energy, all sorts of things would be possible.  Wormholes, warp drives, ftl communication, time machines...  M-E propulsion would look absolutely tame compared to all the other breakthroughs.

Negative-energy (gravitational wave) radiation is a different story though.  If it existed, then the vacuum state would be unstable.  This is the reason why Einstein moved to a tensor rather than vector theory of gravity when creating GR.  Gravitational waves in GR have positive energy.

Quote
As is the reminder that Woodward isn't the only one thinking about the origin of inertia.

The problem here is that Woodward is asking the wrong question.  Inertia is implicit within the equations of motion.  If your theory of gravity (whatever it is) predicts equations of motion, then your theory also describes inertia.  The real questions are "what are the equations of motion?", and "how well do they match with experiment?".

Currently, the simplest theory of gravity that matches all observations is GR.  This isn't for the lack of trying though.  There are many other theories that have failed to live up to expectations.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 07/10/2011 10:15 pm

  Inertia is implicit within the equations of motion.  If your theory of gravity (whatever it is) predicts equations of motion, then your theory also describes inertia.


As previously said I'm a newb to GRT/SRT, but I always thought that equations of motion don't "describe" inertia; they rather require a priori, a particular understanding of inertia,that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

From what I've seen, both the conventional understanding of inertia (that it is a basic and intrinsic property of matter) and Woodward's (that is is an "observed" or "effectively" instantaneous gravitational radiation reaction to the rest of the matter in the universe) have this same understanding.

Even without yet understanding the quadropole / dipole issue yet, I would still disagree that asking what the origin of intertia is, is "the wrong question," any more than asking what the nature of the relationship between energy and mass is, was asking the wrong question for Einstein.

Prior to SRT didn't most people think that energy and mass were fundamentally unrelated phenomena?

Woodward may be wrong about the existence of an easily exploitable "Mach effect," or his inertial flux ideas may also be mistaken, but I still think it's an important question to ask (the origin and possible modifyability of inertia.)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 07/10/2011 10:54 pm
TBH the only thing I truly believe in myself is that we should build these and see.  No simpler way to settle the matter and to Mach Effect Thrusters' credit they sound pretty darn cheap to build proof of concepts for, compared to any potentially revolutionary technologies I can think of.

Cinder:

"Simple" devices often turn out NOT to be as simple in practice as Woodward and his Crew have found out to their chagrin over the last 20 years.  If you need another example of this, just look at the Cold Fusion fiasco where a lot of unprepared folks thought that the 1988 Ponds and Flashmann experiment was "simple" to replicate, but then found out that it wasn't.  However if you are willing to EXACTLY duplicate the best example of the experiment in question, you have a shot of duplicating the results.  And that takes some inital and detailed collaboration with the original experimenter.

Best,

Paul M.
Yes, that's what I'm saying... The experimental setups in question here are on that order.  It's skepticism that keeps more replications from taking place, not affordability.  We're in the table-top ballpark, not so much particle accelerator or even few- but multiple-room setups' order.

Even if the conjecture's definitely wrong, it'll be that much easier in terms of money, to demonstrate it.  And to me the experimental expense in time and effort is worthwhile - with proper records, the how-to lessons wouldn't ever be un-learned and in the big picture this would be one more pair of "concentration" cards excluded representing all possible laws of nature, to narrow down where/what are the "laws" of inertia.

Even if straight forward building and testing approach, rather than theorizing, necessarily includes lots of theorizing to make any progress in figuring out just what needs to be built and how, it's fortunate that ME experiments so far seem to be as affordable as they are.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 07/10/2011 10:57 pm
Quote
As previously said I'm a newb to GRT/SRT, but I always thought that equations of motion don't "describe" inertia; they rather require a priori, a particular understanding of inertia,that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

In Newtonian physics, that is correct.  In that context, it is quite mysterious why inertial mass and gravitational mass have any connection since gravity is just one force amongst many.

GR is different.  It models the behaviour of all mass/energy in the universe in a self-consistent manner.  It handles the effects of every other force by modelling their stress-energy content.  By using calculus of variations on the Einstein equation, the effects of inertia neatly pop out due to conservation of stress-energy.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 07/10/2011 11:09 pm
If the error in ME conjecture is so well defined, shouldn't that help in identifying what is producing the false positive signal in the experiments?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 07/10/2011 11:35 pm
Quote
If the error in ME conjecture is so well defined, shouldn't that help in identifying what is producing the false positive signal in the experiments?

Not really.  The real world is messy, and there are all sorts of non-ideal behaviour you need to worry about.  You are better off designing an experiment that avoids as many of the issues as possible.

Unfortunately for the ME conjecture, the cleanest idea of using a battery powered device surrounded by a Faraday Cage didn't yield any thrust.  This strongly hints that what some of the experiments are measuring isn't what they hope it is.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 07/11/2011 12:20 am
Quote
If the error in ME conjecture is so well defined, shouldn't that help in identifying what is producing the false positive signal in the experiments?

Not really.  The real world is messy, and there are all sorts of non-ideal behaviour you need to worry about.  You are better off designing an experiment that avoids as many of the issues as possible.

Unfortunately for the ME conjecture, the cleanest idea of using a battery powered device surrounded by a Faraday Cage didn't yield any thrust.  This strongly hints that what some of the experiments are measuring isn't what they hope it is.

Wow. First time I've heard of that.

When was that done & by who?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 07/11/2011 12:25 am
Yesterday Duncan Cumming emailed everyone on Woodward's list saying that his battery-powered device didn't work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 07/11/2011 01:17 am
At last, some actual yay/nay evidence!

Nay. Can't wait to see the data. That's the first clear yay /nay evidence I've seen either way, and given he's on the email list it's clear he's not open to the same "didn't do it right" charge the Oak Ridge experiment was labeled with.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/11/2011 01:27 am
That's a big blow to the M-E conjecture, no doubt. However, Hector Brito's self-contained device did produce thrust, so I'm interested in the data of this new experiment.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 07/11/2011 01:43 am
The trouble is that Carl Sagan was spouting nonsense.  Why should the standard of evidence be lowered for claims that people don't find "extraordinary"?

If a certain level of evidence is good enough to be admitted in support of an accepted theory, it should be good enough to be admitted in support of an unpopular one.

was Sagan talking of how he thought things should be, or about how things ARE (maybe he did not agree with it, but was making an observation of how society/scientific community acts)

Has this question been asked elsewhere... E.G. At "Physics Forum"?   I have no idea if (and if so which ones) any internet neighbourhoods or real world groups would give unfair answers.  But it seems worthwhile to sample the answers from more than just our forum here.

Physics Forum does not accepts ME theory. They wont even accept the threads to discuss it. They will close any threads because its not mainstream physics. They said they require the theory to have been published in a peer reviewed paper. I contacted Paul March and asked him for a peer reviewed paper on the subject, and Paul March sent me a link, which I sent to a moderator from Physics Forum. They did not accept that either. Since I have zero knowledge about peer reviewed papers, etc, I could not go further in the discussion with the moderator.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/11/2011 03:44 am
That's a big blow to the M-E conjecture, no doubt. However, Hector Brito's self-contained device did produce thrust, so I'm interested in the data of this new experiment.

GeeGee:

I'll append Duncan's full positing related to his null MLT Coke-Can experiment that he performed about 4 years ago.

Palfreyman: "Right now, I have no explanation for the null results that occurred with the attempts by myself, Duncan and John."

Cumming: "I have a simple explanation for my own null results.  As you recall, I built a self contained, battery powered MLT thruster, placed it on a sensitive balance, and switched it on (using a light beam). No thrust was observed, with a sensitivity of 0.01 milligrams.

The explanation is obvious - my thruster didn't work!  Maybe I built it wrong, perhaps others were lucky in their selection of components, particularly the capacitors.  But the point is, just because MY thruster doesn't work, that does not mean that YOUR thruster doesn't work.  I would definitely call this a null result rather than an inconclusive result, since the thrust predicted by Jim's engineering equation was some four orders of magnitude higher than the sensitivity of the balance.  But I don't think it is necessarily bad news for other experimenters.  The list of known differences between the thruster that I constructed and the thrusters that they constructed is a long one - and there are doubtless many unknown differences as well."

BTW, Hector Brito has no explanation for why his ion-lifter like thruster produces the thrust profile it does while in 3x10^-6 Torr vacuum conditions and ~40kV-dc applied to it.  Hector knows its works under these condtions, but he offers no clue as to why it should. 

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/11/2011 03:55 am
The trouble is that Carl Sagan was spouting nonsense.  Why should the standard of evidence be lowered for claims that people don't find "extraordinary"?

If a certain level of evidence is good enough to be admitted in support of an accepted theory, it should be good enough to be admitted in support of an unpopular one.

was Sagan talking of how he thought things should be, or about how things ARE (maybe he did not agree with it, but was making an observation of how society/scientific community acts)

Has this question been asked elsewhere... E.G. At "Physics Forum"?   I have no idea if (and if so which ones) any internet neighbourhoods or real world groups would give unfair answers.  But it seems worthwhile to sample the answers from more than just our forum here.

Physics Forum does not accepts ME theory. They wont even accept the threads to discuss it. They will close any threads because its not mainstream physics. They said they require the theory to have been published in a peer reviewed paper. I contacted Paul March and asked him for a peer reviewed paper on the subject, and Paul March sent me a link, which I sent to a moderator from Physics Forum. They did not accept that either. Since I have zero knowledge about peer reviewed papers, etc, I could not go further in the discussion with the moderator.

Aceshigh:

"Physics Forum does not accepts ME theory. They wont even accept the threads to discuss it. They will close any threads because its not mainstream physics. They said they require the theory to have been published in a peer reviewed paper."

Did the Physics Forum moderator state what where acceptable peer reviewed journals for publication and what were not?  Last time I looked the "Foundations of Physics" Journal where Woodard has published a fair number of his M-E related papers was considered to be at least a grade B peer reveiwed journal by most.

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

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/11/2011 04:29 am
At last, some actual yay/nay evidence!

Nay. Can't wait to see the data. That's the first clear yay /nay evidence I've seen either way, and given he's on the email list it's clear he's not open to the same "didn't do it right" charge the Oak Ridge experiment was labeled with.

Cuddyihy:

The known to me M-E experimental "score" is that we have on the positive side Woodward's twenty years of experiments, Mahood's 1999 thesis and my own 2004 and 2005 experiments showing micro-Newton to milli-Newton thrust levels using PZT stacks and MLTs.  On the inconclusive or negative side we have Andrew Palfreyman's null 1998 quartz oscillator stack attempt, the Oak Ridge Lab's inconclusive PZT like stack attempt in 2000, John Strader's null linear MLT in 2002, John Cramer's 2004 inconclusive Machian Guitar experiment, Nebo Buldrini's curious/inconclusive Cap only results in 2006 using Woodward's own Mach-6 test article, and Duncan Cumming's null self contained "Coke-Can" attempt in 2007.  Each inconclusive and null result was examined and the lessons learned from each were integrated into Woodward's next round of M-E based experiments.  Sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you miss the mark, but at least the M-E theory has provided us some guidance as to where to go next with increasingly positive results along the way. 

Edit: Clarified test results and added a forgotten test.

BTW, this is what REsearch is all about...

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/11/2011 04:37 am
That's a big blow to the M-E conjecture, no doubt. However, Hector Brito's self-contained device did produce thrust, so I'm interested in the data of this new experiment.

GeeGee:

I'll append Duncan's full positing related to his null MLT Coke-Can experiment that he performed about 4 years ago.


I'm a bit confused...sfuerst said Duncan emailed everyone on Woodward's list yesterday, claiming his battery-powered device didn't work. It sounded like he was referring to a more recent experiment.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/11/2011 05:20 am

Did the Physics Forum moderator state what where acceptable peer reviewed journals for publication and what were not?  Last time I looked the "Foundations of Physics" Journal where Woodard has published a fair number of his M-E related papers was considered to be at least a grade B peer reveiwed journal by most.

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

Best, Paul M.

I think aceshigh is referring to this thread.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=259842

The thread has a critical tone which is pretty understandable, but the moderator's claim is what bothered me:

"This topic may be reopened in the unlikely event that it is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal."

He didn't even bother to check.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 07/11/2011 01:28 pm
Aceshigh:

"Physics Forum does not accepts ME theory. They wont even accept the threads to discuss it. They will close any threads because its not mainstream physics. They said they require the theory to have been published in a peer reviewed paper."

Did the Physics Forum moderator state what where acceptable peer reviewed journals for publication and what were not?  Last time I looked the "Foundations of Physics" Journal where Woodard has published a fair number of his M-E related papers was considered to be at least a grade B peer reveiwed journal by most.

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

Best, Paul M.

I checked my private messages on that forum

Quote from: AcesHigh
You said that "This topic may be reopened once it has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal"

I want to know if this counts as a peer-reviewed journal. Thanks

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000813000001001321000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

the link above it was you who provided me, Paul

the moderator answered me:
Quote from: Redbelly98
No, presenting at a conference is not part of the peer-review process.



its an important physics forum, but I am in no mood to push the issue forward, because I dont know enough about physics or eve about the peer review process, to argue with that or other moderators. If any of you think you can prove them ME should be allowed to have a thread on that forum, feel free to do so.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/11/2011 03:32 pm
That's a big blow to the M-E conjecture, no doubt. However, Hector Brito's self-contained device did produce thrust, so I'm interested in the data of this new experiment.

GeeGee:

I'll append Duncan's full positing related to his null MLT Coke-Can experiment that he performed about 4 years ago.


I'm a bit confused...sfuerst said Duncan emailed everyone on Woodward's list yesterday, claiming his battery-powered device didn't work. It sounded like he was referring to a more recent experiment.

GeeGee:

I appended Duncan's actual related comments from Woodward's Distribution over the weekend in my previous 3:44 AM NSF post without modification.  If you want to see Duncan's entire e-mail I'll be glad to send it to you.  As to when Duncan's "Coke-Can" experiment was performed, it was in the ~2007 time frame, and I'm not aware of any other M-E related tests that Duncan has performed since then.  However I do need to dig out Duncan's ~2007 unpublished report at home to get the exact date for you. 

BTW, our post analysis of Duncan's Coke-Can test indicated that his null results was most likley due to not having the MLT B-field coil potted, which greatly increased its internal wire vibration losses, but primarily not having the required compliant connection between the MLT torroidal cap ring/B-field coil assembly and its associated reaction mass. 

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/11/2011 03:40 pm
Aceshigh:

"Physics Forum does not accepts ME theory. They wont even accept the threads to discuss it. They will close any threads because its not mainstream physics. They said they require the theory to have been published in a peer reviewed paper."

Did the Physics Forum moderator state what where acceptable peer reviewed journals for publication and what were not?  Last time I looked the "Foundations of Physics" Journal where Woodard has published a fair number of his M-E related papers was considered to be at least a grade B peer reveiwed journal by most.

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

Best, Paul M.

I checked my private messages on that forum

Quote from: AcesHigh
You said that "This topic may be reopened once it has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal"

I want to know if this counts as a peer-reviewed journal. Thanks

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000813000001001321000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

the link above it was you who provided me, Paul

the moderator answered me:
Quote from: Redbelly98
No, presenting at a conference is not part of the peer-review process.



its an important physics forum, but I am in no mood to push the issue forward, because I dont know enough about physics or eve about the peer review process, to argue with that or other moderators. If any of you think you can prove them ME should be allowed to have a thread on that forum, feel free to do so.

AcesHigh:

I'm not asking you to fight our battles for us.  I was just curious as to what the Physics Forum moderator was looking for.  So peer reviewed conferences, even if sponsored by the American Institute of Physics (AIP) does not count in the physics mainstream's eyes, check. 

Live and learn.  However that still leaves Woodward's "Foundations of Physics" Journal published M-E related papers.

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/11/2011 03:50 pm
Quote
As previously said I'm a newb to GRT/SRT, but I always thought that equations of motion don't "describe" inertia; they rather require a priori, a particular understanding of inertia,that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

In Newtonian physics, that is correct.  In that context, it is quite mysterious why inertial mass and gravitational mass have any connection since gravity is just one force amongst many.

GR is different.  It models the behaviour of all mass/energy in the universe in a self-consistent manner.  It handles the effects of every other force by modelling their stress-energy content.  By using calculus of variations on the Einstein equation, the effects of inertia neatly pop out due to conservation of stress-energy.


Steve:

"By using calculus of variations on the Einstein equation, the effects of inertia neatly pop out due to conservation of stress-energy."

The effects of inertia may be demonstrated by this approach, but it still doesn't tell us WHY this is so, nor HOW inertia is expressed in the local frame.  However, I'm now going to ask you to take this disscussion up directly with Dr. Woodward, for as an Electrical Engineer, I'm fast getting out of my area of expertise here.

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 07/11/2011 04:22 pm
Guys, if you want to set up a separate discussion thread for M-E, perhaps you should consider the PhysForum discussion site:

http://www.physforum.com

This is where the Heim Theory was discussed. So, there is no fuss about peer review and the like.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: D_Dom on 07/11/2011 04:32 pm
I think NSF is a good forum for this topic, no need for a separate discussion. The peer review questions are part and parcel of expanding this technology into higher TRL acceptance.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 07/11/2011 05:19 pm
Guys, if you want to set up a separate discussion thread for M-E, perhaps you should consider the PhysForum discussion site:

http://www.physforum.com

This is where the Heim Theory was discussed. So, there is no fuss about peer review and the like.

physforum.com used to be linked to http://www.physorg.com/

some of your posts on the news at physorg were directly linked to threads at physforum, and the forum also had a link on physorg mainpage.

now it seems they have split... "now" being about two years ago, that is... in fact, they link now to physicsforum.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/11/2011 08:16 pm



its an important physics forum, but I am in no mood to push the issue forward, because I dont know enough about physics or eve about the peer review process, to argue with that or other moderators. If any of you think you can prove them ME should be allowed to have a thread on that forum, feel free to do so.

You should have linked them to the FOP (Foundation of Physics) papers. He is correct that conference papers are not really subjected to the rigorous peer-review process.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=James+F.+Woodward&sort=p_OnlineDate&sortorder=desc

There are at least five peer-reviewed papers directly relating to mach effects authored by Woodward.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/11/2011 08:26 pm


GeeGee:

I appended Duncan's actual related comments from Woodward's Distribution over the weekend in my previous 3:44 AM NSF post without modification.  If you want to see Duncan's entire e-mail I'll be glad to send it to you.  As to when Duncan's "Coke-Can" experiment was performed, it was in the ~2007 time frame, and I'm not aware of any other M-E related tests that Duncan has performed since then.  However I do need to dig out Duncan's ~2007 unpublished report at home to get the exact date for you. 

That's alright. I suppose it was just the way sfuerst worded his post. It sounded like he was referring to a more recent experiment performed by Duncan that failed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/11/2011 10:27 pm

BTW, Hector Brito has no explanation for why his ion-lifter like thruster produces the thrust profile it does while in 3x10^-6 Torr vacuum conditions and ~40kV-dc applied to it.  Hector knows its works under these condtions, but he offers no clue as to why it should. 

Best,

Paul M.

I am referring to Hector Brito's 1996 self-contained MLT-like device (based on a different physical model).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 07/12/2011 01:31 am



its an important physics forum, but I am in no mood to push the issue forward, because I dont know enough about physics or eve about the peer review process, to argue with that or other moderators. If any of you think you can prove them ME should be allowed to have a thread on that forum, feel free to do so.

You should have linked them to the FOP (Foundation of Physics) papers. He is correct that conference papers are not really subjected to the rigorous peer-review process.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=James+F.+Woodward&sort=p_OnlineDate&sortorder=desc

There are at least five peer-reviewed papers directly relating to mach effects authored by Woodward.



there is always time to do that. Private message the guy and give him the links, and ask him to reopen the thread.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 07/12/2011 02:03 am
Considering how friendly they are now to the idea of allowing and discussing the topic, it might be worth waiting a little later when experiments/replications have progressed up one more notch in credibility to skeptics. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/12/2011 06:14 pm
Paul,

Did Dr. Woodward ever respond to you about sfuerst's comments?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/13/2011 01:41 am
Well, about the demonstration article of "proof".  Right now, the force is very itty bitty.  Floating in a large battery operated device which could hover for an hour seems too much to ask.  What about a dictionary sized article, with a wire attached to it, and a joystick of some sort?  The device sits on the table until it is turned on, and the joystick moves it around the table within the limits of the wire, for maybe five minutes or so.

The "proof" article doesn't have to be huge, but it should move, I'd think, in a fashion detectable by the naked eye.

Quote
Based on a statistical analysis of the signal/noise ratio of the pixels, you find that both 99% assessments are indeed accurate.


Presumably, the scientists witnessing the "proof" article, would have the ability to rule out spurious "explanations".  That is, no large electromagnets under the table, say.  The proof would be, well, proved, when a third party could replicate the demonstration.

Quote
If it works as advertized we get weekend roadtrip times for Moon destinations...

Yes, but it's far too soon to get too excited about stuff like that.  Heck, they can't even reconstruct Saturn V.  So the weekend trip soundbite tends to disillusion many people, I'd say.

There seems to be a difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass.  In the famous elevator experiment, when you let go of the steel sphere, it accelerates to the floor, but you can't tell if the sphere is stationary and the elevator moving, or vice versa.  If you drop two spheres, theoretically, they would converge to the center of gravity of an attracting body as they accelerate to the floor.  If, however, the elevator were accelerating and the spheres stationary, the two spheres would accelerate to the floor in parallel.  Thus, you could tell the difference between inertia and gravity.  Has this experiment ever been done?  Sciama references it in one of his books.

It seems like inertia has something to do with the effect.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/13/2011 04:09 am
Paul,

Did Dr. Woodward ever respond to you about sfuerst's comments?

Only with hints of what his response will be when Jim is ready.  In the meantime I'm getting myself out of the firing range.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 07/13/2011 05:34 am
Quote
If it works as advertized we get weekend roadtrip times for Moon destinations...

Yes, but it's far too soon to get too excited about stuff like that.  Heck, they can't even reconstruct Saturn V.  So the weekend trip soundbite tends to disillusion many people, I'd say.
As I see it, the Moon and planets and stars are always out there. So close yet so far.  That's exciting to me.  Whether it's ME or something else, we have to get there.  I find it exciting to be making progress towards that, one way or another.  Proving or ruling out ME is progress either way:  it either works and gives us that stairway to vaster yet prospects that we'll then gawk at and struggle to come to grips with the same way we are now with climbing out the gravity well, or it doesn't work and it's one less wild goose chase for our means - the men and women working to get us from here to there - to refocus from.
Quote
From desire, ariseth the thought of some means we have seen produce the like of that which we aim at; and from the thought of that, the thought of means to that mean; and so continually, till we come to some beginning within our own power.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 07/13/2011 06:26 am
Quote
As previously said I'm a newb to GRT/SRT, but I always thought that equations of motion don't "describe" inertia; they rather require a priori, a particular understanding of inertia,that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

In Newtonian physics, that is correct.  In that context, it is quite mysterious why inertial mass and gravitational mass have any connection since gravity is just one force amongst many.

GR is different.  It models the behaviour of all mass/energy in the universe in a self-consistent manner.  It handles the effects of every other force by modelling their stress-energy content.  By using calculus of variations on the Einstein equation, the effects of inertia neatly pop out due to conservation of stress-energy.


Steve:

"By using calculus of variations on the Einstein equation, the effects of inertia neatly pop out due to conservation of stress-energy."

The effects of inertia may be demonstrated by this approach, but it still doesn't tell us WHY this is so, nor HOW inertia is expressed in the local frame.  However, I'm now going to ask you to take this disscussion up directly with Dr. Woodward, for as an Electrical Engineer, I'm fast getting out of my area of expertise here.

Best,

Paul M.

Actually GR is rather elegant in how it derives inertia.

You use the Einstein equation  G_ab=8\piT_ab, and take the covariant derivative of both sides.  On the RHS you derive the equations of motion for your material based on the fact that this derivative is zero.  So the effects of inertia are directly linked to the fact that the derivative is zero, and stress-energy is a conserved quantity.

Why is the derivative zero?  Looking at the LHS, we can perform the derivative there as well.  Due to a subtle differential geometry theorem known as the Bianchi Identities, the zero result appears.  In turn, these identities are related to the topological fact that the boundary of a boundary is zero.

So GR links inertia to a neat result in topology.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/13/2011 01:00 pm
Quote
As previously said I'm a newb to GRT/SRT, but I always thought that equations of motion don't "describe" inertia; they rather require a priori, a particular understanding of inertia,that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

In Newtonian physics, that is correct.  In that context, it is quite mysterious why inertial mass and gravitational mass have any connection since gravity is just one force amongst many.

GR is different.  It models the behaviour of all mass/energy in the universe in a self-consistent manner.  It handles the effects of every other force by modelling their stress-energy content.  By using calculus of variations on the Einstein equation, the effects of inertia neatly pop out due to conservation of stress-energy.


Steve:

"By using calculus of variations on the Einstein equation, the effects of inertia neatly pop out due to conservation of stress-energy."

The effects of inertia may be demonstrated by this approach, but it still doesn't tell us WHY this is so, nor HOW inertia is expressed in the local frame.  However, I'm now going to ask you to take this disscussion up directly with Dr. Woodward, for as an Electrical Engineer, I'm fast getting out of my area of expertise here.

Best,

Paul M.

Actually GR is rather elegant in how it derives inertia.

You use the Einstein equation  G_ab=8\piT_ab, and take the covariant derivative of both sides.  On the RHS you derive the equations of motion for your material based on the fact that this derivative is zero.  So the effects of inertia are directly linked to the fact that the derivative is zero, and stress-energy is a conserved quantity.

Why is the derivative zero?  Looking at the LHS, we can perform the derivative there as well.  Due to a subtle differential geometry theorem known as the Bianchi Identities, the zero result appears.  In turn, these identities are related to the topological fact that the boundary of a boundary is zero.

So GR links inertia to a neat result in topology.

Steve:

What is your definition of "Stress-Energy" in the GRT context?  In other words what is it physically??

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/13/2011 01:09 pm
Quote from: Cinder
Proving or ruling out ME is progress either way...

Totally agree.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 07/13/2011 04:05 pm

What is your definition of "Stress-Energy" in the GRT context?  In other words what is it physically??

The Stress-Energy Tensor contains terms that describe all the mass/energy and momentum flux in a small differential volume around a given point.  It contains things like the density, pressure, kinetic energy, energy-momentum of any fields, any shear forces etc.

There is an article on it at wikipedia that is relatively readable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor)

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 07/22/2011 10:43 pm
According to GRT, wormholes are supposed to allow for time travel as well as distance travel. That there have been no verified accounts of anyone visiting us from the future suggests that backwards time travel is possible. If wormholes cannot be used for time travel, then they probably cannot be used for distance travel, meaning that they are impossible. Perhaps wormholes are possible, but can only be used for distance travel and not time travel.

Perhaps Woodward-Mach effect can be used to make the "space drive" (sub-light, of course) but cannot be used to make wormholes. In this case, it would still open up the solar system for settlement and development, O'neill-style, and that would be good enough in itself.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 07/22/2011 10:50 pm

its an important physics forum, but I am in no mood to push the issue forward, because I dont know enough about physics or eve about the peer review process, to argue with that or other moderators. If any of you think you can prove them ME should be allowed to have a thread on that forum, feel free to do so.

I PMed the moderator with the peer-reviewed papers and he has re-opened the thread.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=259842

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 07/23/2011 03:01 pm
Kurt,

believe there is a theory that a time machine may not travel back before the time it was created.

Lack of observation of time travelers only shows that no time machine currently exists!

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/26/2011 11:44 pm
When a spinning laser gyroscope is placed near a super-cooled rotating ring, the gyroscope accelerates a bit in the same direction as the ring, and scientists aren’t sure why.

  http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-gyroscope-unexplained-due-inertia.html

“Inertial mass has not been well understood and has been assumed to be the same as gravitational mass (the Equivalence Principle, EP),” McCulloch explained. “If MiHsC is correct, then the EP is only an approximation (the small deviation from the EP due to MiHsC could not have been detected in torsion balance experiments, as I explain in the Discussion of my paper). As a result there may be implications for General Relativity since this assumes the EP is true (and therefore also implications for low-acceleration phenomena like the orbits of stars at the edge of galaxies).

“Once the cause of something is known, then it may be controllable,” he said. “The control of inertia could be useful. For example: Can we generate Unruh radiation to change the inertial mass of an object and thereby move it? I have discussed this possibility in previous papers (e.g., EPL, 90, 29001).”
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/27/2011 03:09 pm
When a spinning laser gyroscope is placed near a super-cooled rotating ring, the gyroscope accelerates a bit in the same direction as the ring, and scientists aren’t sure why.

  http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-gyroscope-unexplained-due-inertia.html

“Inertial mass has not been well understood and has been assumed to be the same as gravitational mass (the Equivalence Principle, EP),” McCulloch explained. “If MiHsC is correct, then the EP is only an approximation (the small deviation from the EP due to MiHsC could not have been detected in torsion balance experiments, as I explain in the Discussion of my paper). As a result there may be implications for General Relativity since this assumes the EP is true (and therefore also implications for low-acceleration phenomena like the orbits of stars at the edge of galaxies).

“Once the cause of something is known, then it may be controllable,” he said. “The control of inertia could be useful. For example: Can we generate Unruh radiation to change the inertial mass of an object and thereby move it? I have discussed this possibility in previous papers (e.g., EPL, 90, 29001).”

Folks:

Find attached a couple of McCoulloch's related modified inertia papers that are on the web.  From a quick reading, it appears that McCoulloch combines some of Wooward's and White's ideas on inerita that inertia is the consequence of long wave gravitational radiation bouncing back and forth in the Caimir cavity created by the casually connected universe.  It appears that McCoulloch's work does not directly conflict with either Woodward's or White's work to date, but this is just after my first reading of these papers and your opinion on this topic may differ.

Best.

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 08/09/2011 08:13 pm
According to GRT, wormholes are supposed to allow for time travel as well as distance travel. That there have been no verified accounts of anyone visiting us from the future suggests that backwards time travel is possible. If wormholes cannot be used for time travel, then they probably cannot be used for distance travel, meaning that they are impossible. Perhaps wormholes are possible, but can only be used for distance travel and not time travel.

Perhaps Woodward-Mach effect can be used to make the "space drive" (sub-light, of course) but cannot be used to make wormholes. In this case, it would still open up the solar system for settlement and development, O'neill-style, and that would be good enough in itself.

Speaking of wormholes, I found this paper that does not spell good news for them:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0504003

Basically, this paper says wormholes cannot be both stable and predictable. Type A devices (semiclassical) are unstable and type B devices (large space-time fluctuations induced by quantum matter) are unpredictable. The instability arises from a violation of the null energy condition, as shown here  (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0606091).

Though it has to be said I found a paper (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0512/0512260v2.pdf) that provides counter-examples where systems violating the null energy condition can be stable. Quote from the paper:

"A necessary feature of all the counter-examples is the anisotropy of the background and, perhaps more importantly, the presence of superluminal modes. In fact we proved that for systems that are either isotropic or do not feature superluminality, a violation of the null energy condition always implies an unescapable instability"

Whether the M-E exotic matter term can produce wormholes or not will depends on the nature of the exotic matter, it seems.

Warp drives for interstellar travel is becoming less likely, after it was discovered that as soon as one enters superluminal velocity, the bubble becomes unstable and an influx of hawking radiation accumulates in the center of the bubble, frying anything inside to a crisp. Subluminal warp drives are still possible (albeit you still need exotic matter)...but superluminal warp drives appear to be impossible.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0904/0904.0141v2.pdf
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 08/10/2011 04:09 pm
I dont give a damn about wormholes. If we can reach near light speed easily and cheap, we can reach the edge of the universe in only 60 years (ship time)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 08/10/2011 05:05 pm
Dunno about giving a damn, but for sure "conventional" Mach thrusters would already revolutionize life on earth and in space.  Saturn in two weeks' time is just ... crazy :)

Revolutionary is almost an understatement.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 08/10/2011 06:29 pm
I dont give a damn about wormholes. If we can reach near light speed easily and cheap, we can reach the edge of the universe in only 60 years (ship time)

For interstellar flight to be economical and safe, we need FTL. Period. The kind of trip you're proposing is a one-way suicide mission (unless of course you know that there's a habitable Earth-like planet at your destination and you plan on colonizing it).

If it's not possible, then you can kiss those dreams good bye. If I am not mistaken, Paul shared similar sentiments on the polywell forum.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 08/10/2011 06:41 pm
To do interstellar travel cost effectively and within any kind of payback period requires some sort of FTL. If FTL is not possible, any interstellar travel is strictly one-way and it has to be self-financed. Although the Woodward-Mach approach is plausible, its still likely that FTL is impossible. Its quite likely that Woodward-Mach will give us the space drive but not FTL. It is also likely that if FTL is possible, that it will be wormholes but that FTL space craft are not possible. Eric Davis believes this to be the case.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 08/10/2011 07:40 pm
It is also likely that if FTL is possible, that it will be wormholes but that FTL space craft are not possible. Eric Davis believes this to be the case.

Yes. That last paper I posted shows a superluminal warp drive is impossible for the time being. I have yet to see that problem addressed by other researchers.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 08/11/2011 08:34 pm
lets clarify. I do give a damn about FTL. But I dont think its necessary yet. I will be content with sub luminal Mach in my lifetime. We still have to colonize the whole solar system, including dozens of moons and hundreds of asteroids, before we need to worry about other star systems. WHILE we colonize the solar system, we can already dispel hundreds of Mach propelled probes to several different stars and wait for their data

In fact, with Mach we would be able to build huge space telescopes that would probably be able to look at planets in other star systems with the same clarity we can see Mars (from Earth) nowadays.

One step at a time is enough for me.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mrflora on 08/11/2011 09:40 pm
Hello everyone, this is my first post.  I have been lurking for quite a while.  I am intrigued by Woodward and his experiments but also skeptical (as I am sure most people here are).  Lately I have been trying to think of ways to amplify the effect, if it exists, to a level where there could be no doubt of its existence.  Looking at Woodward's equations, the thrust appears to depend on dP/dt, the power rate of change into the device.  Since multi-megawatt lasers exist with very short pulse duration, would it be plausible to incorporate a short-pulse laser into a Mach thruster?  There would be a photon momentum effect of course that would have to be taken into account.

Regards,
M.R.F.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 08/11/2011 10:25 pm
lets clarify. I do give a damn about FTL. But I dont think its necessary yet. I will be content with sub luminal Mach in my lifetime. We still have to colonize the whole solar system, including dozens of moons and hundreds of asteroids, before we need to worry about other star systems. WHILE we colonize the solar system, we can already dispel hundreds of Mach propelled probes to several different stars and wait for their data

In fact, with Mach we would be able to build huge space telescopes that would probably be able to look at planets in other star systems with the same clarity we can see Mars (from Earth) nowadays.

One step at a time is enough for me.

I do agree with you, I'm just pointing out some problems that need to be addressed by Woodward and others working on the stargate problem. Exotic matter is not the only thing getting in the way of stargates/warp drives. It's also the problems I mentioned above, and of course, the principle of causality, which is held VERY dearly by physicists. For example, closed timelike curves always surface in solutions for two black holes orbiting each other, yet they are dismissed as mathematical artifacts by most physicists. That's because most physicists find the idea of violating causality to be offensive to nature. Wormholes and other FTL solutions to Einstein's field equations are dismissed for similar reasons (it is trivially easy to make a wormhole into a time machine).

That's why I'm hoping John Cramer's retrocausality experiment works. If it is successful, we will have to seriously re-evaluate our understanding of time. CTC's and FTL space-times will also have to be reconsidered. Even if the experiment fails, something valuable will be learned.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 08/12/2011 02:36 am
I dont give a damn about wormholes. If we can reach near light speed easily and cheap, we can reach the edge of the universe in only 60 years (ship time)

For interstellar flight to be economical and safe, we need FTL. Period. The kind of trip you're proposing is a one-way suicide mission (unless of course you know that there's a habitable Earth-like planet at your destination and you plan on colonizing it).

If it's not possible, then you can kiss those dreams good bye. If I am not mistaken, Paul shared similar sentiments on the polywell forum.

FTL is completely unnecessary for interstellar travel. Firstly, the average distance between stellar neighbors is around 6 ly. Our closest is 4.2, or possibly closer (if Nemesis exists, or as many astronomers believe, there are brown dwarfs in interstellar space undiscovered as yet). At 0.9C, that is a shorter trip than Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe.

as for knowing whether there are habitable planets at ones destination, thats a false argument, given how many extrasolar planets are being discovered now, within 10-20 years or so we'll be able to observe earth sized planets pretty closely so any interstellar voyage will know exactly what sort of planet is at their destination.

Right now, we know of a planet in the goldilocks zone around GJ581, 20 ly away. While it is a jovian world, odds are that there is a moon in orbit around it that is habitable.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 08/12/2011 03:29 am



FTL is completely unnecessary for interstellar travel. Firstly, the average distance between stellar neighbors is around 6 ly. Our closest is 4.2, or possibly closer (if Nemesis exists, or as many astronomers believe, there are brown dwarfs in interstellar space undiscovered as yet). At 0.9C, that is a shorter trip than Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe.

as for knowing whether there are habitable planets at ones destination, thats a false argument, given how many extrasolar planets are being discovered now, within 10-20 years or so we'll be able to observe earth sized planets pretty closely so any interstellar voyage will know exactly what sort of planet is at their destination.

Right now, we know of a planet in the goldilocks zone around GJ581, 20 ly away. While it is a jovian world, odds are that there is a moon in orbit around it that is habitable.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it will be hard to justify manned interstellar flights economically given multi-decade voyages (or longer).

Also, I was specifically responding to the idea of a trip to the edge of the universe. That really is a suicide mission.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/12/2011 04:43 am



FTL is completely unnecessary for interstellar travel. Firstly, the average distance between stellar neighbors is around 6 ly. Our closest is 4.2, or possibly closer (if Nemesis exists, or as many astronomers believe, there are brown dwarfs in interstellar space undiscovered as yet). At 0.9C, that is a shorter trip than Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe.

as for knowing whether there are habitable planets at ones destination, thats a false argument, given how many extrasolar planets are being discovered now, within 10-20 years or so we'll be able to observe earth sized planets pretty closely so any interstellar voyage will know exactly what sort of planet is at their destination.

Right now, we know of a planet in the goldilocks zone around GJ581, 20 ly away. While it is a jovian world, odds are that there is a moon in orbit around it that is habitable.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it will be hard to justify manned interstellar flights economically given multi-decade voyages (or longer).

Also, I was specifically responding to the idea of a trip to the edge of the universe. That really is a suicide mission.

GeeGee:

Sonny White has a possible way around the warp drive/wormhole stability problem that may work out in practice, see attached paper.  Past that even if conventional GRT analysis indciates that wormholes will be unstable, and don't forget that the last word in that venue won't be said until we have a vetted quantum gravity theory that will replace GRT, so what?  Helicopters are by definition unstable, but we have learned over the years how to make them stable enough to make them a vital part of our transportation system.  In a like manner I can think of at least a few ways to apply active negative control feed back loops to a wormhole generator that could stabilize them for our uses.  It may take a bit to get it right, but this kind of engineering has been done before.

Best,

Paul M.   
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 08/12/2011 07:14 am
GeeGee:

Sonny White has a possible way around the warp drive/wormhole stability problem that may work out in practice, see attached paper.  Past that even if conventional GRT analysis indciates that wormholes will be unstable, and don't forget that the last word in that venue won't be said until we have a vetted quantum gravity theory that will replace GRT, so what?  Helicopters are by definition unstable, but we have learned over the years how to make them stable enough to make them a vital part of our transportation system.  In a like manner I can think of at least a few ways to apply active negative control feed back loops to a wormhole generator that could stabilize them for our uses.  It may take a bit to get it right, but this kind of engineering has been done before.

Best,

Paul M.   

Thanks for the paper. I'll read it when I get the chance.

The problem in the instability issue Stephen Hsu brings up is not one that seems to have an engineering solution. They found that matter violating the null energy condition leads to instability for a broad class of models. That is a fundamental constraint.

But then again, the other paper I linked provided counter-examples where systems violating the null energy condition are stable. So it all depends on the model you're using.

Is Woodward aware of this wormhole paper? I'm curious about his opinion on it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0504003
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 08/12/2011 10:16 pm
thats my issue with discussing FTL... let Woodward devote his entire time and brain power to propellantless propulsion at sublight speeds...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 08/21/2011 06:01 am
thats my issue with discussing FTL... let Woodward devote his entire time and brain power to propellantless propulsion at sublight speeds...
If he's healthy...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 09/05/2011 12:33 pm
any news from Paul?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/07/2011 07:29 am
any news from Paul?

Actually, theres been a bunch of us having a rather energetic and deep scientific discussion on Jims mail list about how Jim's theory fits in with modern cosmology. Physicist Jack Sarfatti has been arguing for his own cosmological view and alternatively being skeptical of Jim's maths then trying to shoehorn it into his own cosmology. Paul Zielinski has been the primary third arguer with his own frame based view of gravity theory, while Jim calmly explains his theory and how it fits into things and why things are as they are (I have contributed little other than getting Jack to drop the acrimony and stick to the science). There are some interesting developments there with a lot of too and fro, which should have some impact on Jim's theory that will likely solidify it more in terms of not only GR but more modern cosmological developments like de Sitter, etc. I'll leave it at that for now until Jim has something to publish about it. The paper will probably be something Jim presents at SPESIF or STAIF that he's been finalizing. We'll see, stay tuned.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: qraal on 09/07/2011 12:04 pm
On the FTL warp-drive "impossibility" issue I have it on good authority that we'll see a paper before long refuting the extreme Hawking radiation predicted when a warp goes FTL. Apparently the 1-D approximation used to get that result artificially exaggerated the effect and a 3-D computation gets a much, much more benign outcome.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 09/08/2011 05:10 pm
thanks for update Mlorrey. Try to keep us informed of what´s going on Jim´s mail list.

muito obrigado
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: BarryKirk on 09/10/2011 01:39 pm
Just wondering if anything coming out of the LHC will have any effect on this discussion?

I understand that the only important thing is the experimental results, and it sounds like Paul March and Jim Woodward are providing excellent results.

However, with the possible or probably non-existance of the Higgs and the possible non-existance of super symetrical particles.  Is that putting a damper on dark matter?

If so, than would the Mach effect be able to explain the astronomical observations such as Galaxies rotating too rapidly?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/13/2011 03:50 am
Just wondering if anything coming out of the LHC will have any effect on this discussion?

I understand that the only important thing is the experimental results, and it sounds like Paul March and Jim Woodward are providing excellent results.

However, with the possible or probably non-existance of the Higgs and the possible non-existance of super symetrical particles.  Is that putting a damper on dark matter?

If so, than would the Mach effect be able to explain the astronomical observations such as Galaxies rotating too rapidly?

Barry:

Per Woodward's Mach-Effect conjecture, there is no need for the Higgs boson.  Per the M-E, what gives inertial mass its measurable properties is how the cosmological gravity field created by all the mass & energy contained in the causally connected universe interacts with each subatomic particle in a dynamic balance between the electrical, magnetic and gravitational forces.  Woodward explored this topic in his SPESIF-2011 Stargate paper that will finally be published later this year.  Woodward is also writing a book on all of this that he hopes to publish next year.

Meanwhile more convincing experimental data in support of the M-E is required, so that is what I am still working on while I'm also helping Dr. Harold (Sonny) White at JSC in experimentally investigating Sonny's complementary IMO QVF/MHD conjecture as well.

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 09/13/2011 03:05 pm
  Woodward explored this topic in his SPESIF-2011 Stargate paper that will finally be published later this year.  Woodward is also writing a book on all of this that he hopes to publish next year.


Paul,

I am on Woodward's mailing list now (thanks to Ron Stahl). Would you mind emailing me this stargate paper?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/14/2011 04:08 am
  Woodward explored this topic in his SPESIF-2011 Stargate paper that will finally be published later this year.  Woodward is also writing a book on all of this that he hopes to publish next year.


Paul,

I am on Woodward's mailing list now (thanks to Ron Stahl). Would you mind emailing me this stargate paper?

GeeGee:

Pass me your e-mail address at my SBCglobal address and I will.

Best,
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/14/2011 11:16 am
Just wondering if anything coming out of the LHC will have any effect on this discussion?

I understand that the only important thing is the experimental results, and it sounds like Paul March and Jim Woodward are providing excellent results.

However, with the possible or probably non-existance of the Higgs and the possible non-existance of super symetrical particles.  Is that putting a damper on dark matter?

If so, than would the Mach effect be able to explain the astronomical observations such as Galaxies rotating too rapidly?

Galaxies rotating "too rapidly" is a function of dark matter's gravitational influence. That said, one problem with the "rotating too rapidly" claim is that people treat galaxies as monolithic structures when they arent. Firstly, you've got super black holes at their centers causing significant frame dragging effects (and thus time dilations in what you observe of the galaxies spin at various radii from the galactic center). Secondly, "galactic arms" arent structures, but gravitationally influenced waves. The stars, planets, clouds, etc within each arm are not trapped in any particular arm, they orbit their galaxies at normal orbital velocities and drift from arm to arm. It's like traffic on a highway, which clumps up in certain places and breaks apart elsewhere. A traffic jam isn't a structure, it is merely an emergent behavior of many drivers.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 09/15/2011 01:45 am


GeeGee:

Pass me your e-mail address at my SBCglobal address and I will.

Best,

Just read it. It answered a lot of questions I had about approaches to making wormholes (i.e. if the idea of inflating a quantum foam wormhole  to macroscopic size is feasible at all).

I am curious about the relationship between the ADM model (incorporating spin) and the standard model, though. If the standard model is correct (we cannot say it is complete until the Higgs is discovered), does this imply the ADM model is not a realistic alternative? How does the success of the standard model affect the ADM model?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/15/2011 03:17 am


GeeGee:

Pass me your e-mail address at my SBCglobal address and I will.

Best,

Just read it. It answered a lot of questions I had about approaches to making wormholes (i.e. if the idea of inflating a quantum foam wormhole  to macroscopic size is feasible at all).

I am curious about the relationship between the ADM model (incorporating spin) and the standard model, though. If the standard model is correct (we cannot say it is complete until the Higgs is discovered), does this imply the ADM model is not a realistic alternative? How does the success of the standard model affect the ADM model?

Gee Gee:

News flash, the standard particle physics model can be accurate in its predictions but it can be hardly considered compete with or without the Higgs particle.  In fact its an ad-hoc theory that has so many theoretical holes in it that it will not stand the test of time much longer.  Woodward's addition of gravitational and inertial spin effects to the ADM model may be all the push needed to topple the standard model's house of cards...

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 09/22/2011 09:45 pm
CERN physicists have recorded subatomic particles traveling faster-than-light

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

If this experiment can be replicated, it would be the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 09/23/2011 01:56 am
no, the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity is the Mach Effect. Although its not really PROVED yet. So maybe FTL neutrinos are the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity and until Mach Effect is proved without a doubt.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Moe Grills on 09/23/2011 01:59 am
CERN physicists have recorded subatomic particles traveling faster-than-light

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

If this experiment can be replicated, it would be the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity.

Neutrinos pass through the most massive, most dense and most voluminous matter as if it were barely there.
Little chance, if any, of propulsion emerging from that.

Interstellar communication maybe a different thing altogether.
SETI cultists and fans need to RETHINK the concept that supposed ET's only communicate by EMR.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 09/23/2011 02:24 am

Neutrinos pass through the most massive, most dense and most voluminous matter as if it were barely there.
Little chance, if any, of propulsion emerging from that.

Interstellar communication maybe a different thing altogether.
SETI cultists and fans need to RETHINK the concept that supposed ET's only communicate by EMR.


Yes, I don't see how this could be useful for space propulsion, but the implications for FTL communication and retrocausal signaling are hard to ignore.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/23/2011 03:19 am

Neutrinos pass through the most massive, most dense and most voluminous matter as if it were barely there.
Little chance, if any, of propulsion emerging from that.

Interstellar communication maybe a different thing altogether.
SETI cultists and fans need to RETHINK the concept that supposed ET's only communicate by EMR.


Yes, I don't see how this could be useful for space propulsion, but the implications for FTL communication and retrocausal signaling are hard to ignore.

And don't forget that the M-E requires there to be retrocausal connections between the locally accelerated mass and the rest of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 09/23/2011 05:55 am

Neutrinos pass through the most massive, most dense and most voluminous matter as if it were barely there.
Little chance, if any, of propulsion emerging from that.

Interstellar communication maybe a different thing altogether.
SETI cultists and fans need to RETHINK the concept that supposed ET's only communicate by EMR.


Yes, I don't see how this could be useful for space propulsion, but the implications for FTL communication and retrocausal signaling are hard to ignore.

And don't forget that the M-E requires there to be retrocausal connections between the locally accelerated mass and the rest of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe.
would neutrinos be exempt from M-E influence?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: marsavian on 09/23/2011 07:42 am
CERN physicists have recorded subatomic particles traveling faster-than-light

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

If this experiment can be replicated, it would be the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity.

I think the measurement will be found to be flawed unfortunately but it would be very interesting if true.

But the group understands that what are known as "systematic errors" could easily make an erroneous result look like a breaking of the ultimate speed limit, and that has motivated them to publish their measurements.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kkattula on 09/23/2011 08:43 am
And don't forget that the M-E requires there to be retrocausal connections between the locally accelerated mass and the rest of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe.

Which brings me back to a question I asked a while back:

Is there anyway to tell if anyone else in the causally connected Universe is using M-E technology, (on a large scale), by it's observable effect on the observable Universe?

Would M-E generators tend to push the rest of the Universe away? Oh no, dark energy... ;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 09/23/2011 09:03 am
I speculated the same earlier up thread.

Implication would be that usage became "cosmically" significant 5 billion years ago when dark energy started to make it's effects felt.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/23/2011 12:19 pm
Folks:

"Is there anyway to tell if anyone else in the causally connected Universe is using M-E technology, (on a large scale), by it's observable effect on the observable Universe?"

Look at the magnitude of extracted M-E energy required to make this senario play out by any and all species/civilizations required to accomplish this feat.  We would have to have multiple civilizations moving around whole galaxies over billions of years before they would have any noticable impact on the observable negative energy levels.  I guess that outcome is not impossible, but you've got to ask why would any civilization pursue such a course?  And surely they would have noticed along the way the possibility of their actions was driving the universe towards a "Big Rip" ending and changed their ways.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 09/23/2011 02:28 pm
Common theme in certain speculative fiction, though.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 09/23/2011 04:36 pm
CERN physicists have recorded subatomic particles traveling faster-than-light

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

If this experiment can be replicated, it would be the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity.

http://xkcd.com/955/ (http://xkcd.com/955/)

Quote
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.

This means that you are free to copy and reuse any of my drawings (noncommercially) as long as you tell people where they're from.

That is, you don't need my permission to post these pictures on your website (and hotlinking with <img> is fine); just include a link back to this page. Or you can make Livejournal icons from them, but -- if possible -- put xkcd.com in the comment field. You can use them freely (with some kind of link) in not-for-profit publications, and I'm also okay with people reprinting occasional comics (with clear attribution) in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, and presentations. If you're not sure whether your use is noncommercial, feel free to email me and ask (if you're not sure, it's probably okay).

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: douglas100 on 09/23/2011 06:58 pm
 ;D
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 09/23/2011 06:59 pm


And don't forget that the M-E requires there to be retrocausal connections between the locally accelerated mass and the rest of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe.

Physicists are stating one of the consequences of this being right is having to rewrite special relativity.

Isn't this kind of a bad result for the M-E conjecture since it relies on SR being correct?

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/23/2011 07:38 pm
CERN physicists have recorded subatomic particles traveling faster-than-light

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

If this experiment can be replicated, it would be the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity.

This experiment has mistaken conclusions. The neutrinos are travelling at what light speed is in a vacuum in flat spacetime because they are weakly interacting or noninteractive with regular matter. Photons, due to special relativity, are bound to curved geodesics in our nonflat spactime which causes the perception of a slower speed of light for the photons, hence the neutrinos travel a billionth of a second faster than the photons.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: douglas100 on 09/23/2011 08:32 pm
Curved spacetime is a feature of General Relativity not Special Relativity.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 09/23/2011 08:49 pm
no, the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity is the Mach Effect. Although its not really PROVED yet. So maybe FTL neutrinos are the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity and until Mach Effect is proved without a doubt.
How can the Mach Effect be proven inside CERN? Who will do the research?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/24/2011 01:32 am

Neutrinos pass through the most massive, most dense and most voluminous matter as if it were barely there.
Little chance, if any, of propulsion emerging from that.

Interstellar communication maybe a different thing altogether.
SETI cultists and fans need to RETHINK the concept that supposed ET's only communicate by EMR.


Yes, I don't see how this could be useful for space propulsion, but the implications for FTL communication and retrocausal signaling are hard to ignore.

And don't forget that the M-E requires there to be retrocausal connections between the locally accelerated mass and the rest of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe.
would neutrinos be exempt from M-E influence?

Neutrinos, while weakly interacting, DO have mass, so they are influenced by gravity, just less than photons are.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 09/24/2011 01:34 am
Curved spacetime is a feature of General Relativity not Special Relativity.

General Relativity describes spacetime, but it is special relativity that says that the energy of a photon is relativistically equivalent to mass, which is why gravity bends light, and can slow the local velocity of light down.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Oberon_Command on 09/24/2011 01:51 am
CERN physicists have recorded subatomic particles traveling faster-than-light

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

If this experiment can be replicated, it would be the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity.

This experiment has mistaken conclusions. The neutrinos are travelling at what light speed is in a vacuum in flat spacetime because they are weakly interacting or noninteractive with regular matter. Photons, due to special relativity, are bound to curved geodesics in our nonflat spactime which causes the perception of a slower speed of light for the photons, hence the neutrinos travel a billionth of a second faster than the photons.

You don't think the scientists at CERN accounted for that already? If the neutrinos and photons take different paths, that seems like the kind of thing they'd have to take into consideration just to detect the neutrinos in the first place.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: tdperk on 09/24/2011 10:45 pm
"Is there anyway to tell if anyone else in the causally connected Universe is using M-E technology, (on a large scale), by it's observable effect on the observable Universe?"
kkattula   09/23/2011 08:43 AM

&

"Look at the magnitude of extracted M-E energy required to make this senario play out by any and all species/civilizations required to accomplish this feat.  We would have to have multiple civilizations moving around whole galaxies over billions of years before they would have any noticable impact on the observable negative energy levels.  I guess that outcome is not impossible, but you've got to ask why would any civilization pursue such a course?  And surely they would have noticed along the way the possibility of their actions was driving the universe towards a "Big Rip" ending and changed their ways."
Star-Drive   09/23/2011 12:19 PM

Alternatively, it may be this:
What we see which we now explain to be an inflationary universe--dark energy, dark matter, superluminal expansion--these in fact are the results of a long future period wherein the intelligences which exist in that future time are using M-E effect energy generation to prolong their existence past the point the rest of the universe having experienced decay to iron, heat death.  Iron still has mass, and to my knowledge the M-E effect might be usable to generate power as long as mass exists somewhere in the universe.  They may not be using "Kardashev 9" energies, but using far lesser power for them a long time results in many backwards going arrows landing where we can see their effects.

It could take a long time to figure a way around heat death.

Or maybe they/we don't.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 09/25/2011 05:50 am
Yes, I don't see how this could be useful for space propulsion, but the implications for FTL communication and retrocausal signaling are hard to ignore.

haha.. that is like finding a cabbage that can converse about plato and noting that you don't see how this affects other green leafy vegetables.

Of course you can't. Who could? It would overturn everything we thought we knew about principles of evolution that affect all life on this planet and every other. :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 09/25/2011 09:45 am
tdperk,

a big rip will decompose every atom, including iron, to subatomic particles. No particle will be causally connected to any other - a true end of the universe.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: douglas100 on 09/25/2011 10:50 am

Neutrinos, while weakly interacting, DO have mass, so they are influenced by gravity, just less than photons are.

And that's why neutrinos should be traveling SLOWER than the speed of light, not faster. A particle with rest mass cannot travel at the speed of light.  That's why this result has caused some excitement.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: tdperk on 09/25/2011 04:21 pm
tdperk,

a big rip will decompose every atom, including iron, to subatomic particles. No particle will be causally connected to any other - a true end of the universe.

cheers, Martin

Yes, but my understanding of the inflation of the universe is that it is a stretch and not a rip.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 09/25/2011 05:33 pm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_rip

Not sure how much this is just a matter of semantics, ie if a stretch only became observable 5b years ago is it now getting stronger? If so, could it eventually become violent enough to be called a "rip'?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 09/27/2011 02:45 pm
no, the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity is the Mach Effect. Although its not really PROVED yet. So maybe FTL neutrinos are the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity and until Mach Effect is proved without a doubt.
How can the Mach Effect be proven inside CERN? Who will do the research?

Who said Mach Effect would be proved at CERN? We are talking about the biggest discoveries in Physics, not the biggest discoveries at CERN.




anyway, returning to the neutrinos issue... experiments that have detected neutrino bursts from distant supernovas have found absolutely no evidence of FTL. They arrived 5 hours before the supernova light. From a distance of 160 thousand ly. That 5 hours difference is the expected difference of neutrinos passing through the star layers as if they were nothing, unlike light, that has difficulty transversing all that mass.


Thus, we do have experiments that prove beyond a doubt neutrinos do NOT travel faster than light.

but we also have a CERN experiment showing neutrinos travelled faster than light. Or did they???

the CERN experiment does not shows neutrinos travelling faster than light. They show the neutrinos arriving EARLIER than light.


Maybe, the neutrinos did not travel faster than C... but they made a "jump", or in some way, here was a small spacetime distortion that the neutrinos took a ride on... and of course, its quite known that spacetime can expand faster than light.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 09/27/2011 03:23 pm
These FTL neutrinos don't necessarily mean they have violated the ultimate speed limit. Some physicists are speculating (assuming the results are accurate and not due to systematic error) that the neutrinos might have taken a shortcut through an extra dimension or a wormhole. If this phenomena can be explained by extra dimensions, I'm sure the string theorists will have a field day.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Giovanni DS on 09/27/2011 04:42 pm
Or, more probably it will proved to be just a measurement error.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 09/27/2011 07:24 pm
I highly doubt it will be "just a measurement error." The data is very impressive.

But I suppose we'll see how this unfolds in the coming months.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: qraal on 09/27/2011 08:11 pm
I highly doubt it will be "just a measurement error." The data is very impressive.

But I suppose we'll see how this unfolds in the coming months.

If it's an error, it'll be a very interesting one.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 10/06/2011 04:53 pm
I've found Harold White's presentation on warp drive from the 100 SS symposium. It's an interesting approach, but it also relies upon brane cosmology being an accurate model of reality.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110015936&qs=Ns%3DLoaded-Date%7C1%26N%3D4294950110
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 10/06/2011 08:31 pm
Thus, we do have experiments that prove beyond a doubt neutrinos do NOT travel faster than light.

You seem to be assuming that all neutrinos travel at the same speed.

Of course, if they really were tachyons, you'd expect higher-energy ones to go slower, not faster, which goes against the observation (I believe the supernova neutrinos were lower-energy)...

Were they the same type of neutrino?

Or perhaps they can be tachyonic, but aren't always?

You can't make such a declaration based on the data we have.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/07/2011 04:06 am
I've found Harold White's presentation on warp drive from the 100 SS symposium. It's an interesting approach, but it also relies upon brane cosmology being an accurate model of reality.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110015936&qs=Ns%3DLoaded-Date%7C1%26N%3D4294950110

GeeGee:

"It's an interesting approach, but it also relies upon brane cosmology being an accurate model of reality."

Well, you've got to start from somewhere and brane cosmology is as good a place as any to start from.  Especially if Sonny White's Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation (QVF) model really turns out to have the high predictive accuracy it appears that it might have.  If it does, well then, we have interstellar "Boost Factors" to consider in our travel plans...

Best,
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: madsci on 10/07/2011 11:08 am
  What is the latest paper/communication with the formula for the mass variation of a charging capacitor ?
  I understand that an earlier version of that derivation was incorrect ?
 
  Sorry if that should be easy to find: for me it's not clear where to look since Dr. Woodward's web site is quite difficult to navigate and I can't find a web site for Paul March.

  The current one I have is from Cramer et al.'s paper:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdf (http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdf)

  There it is assumed that phi=c^2. Is this assumption still true in the latest version of Woodward's theory ?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 10/07/2011 12:26 pm
Thus, we do have experiments that prove beyond a doubt neutrinos do NOT travel faster than light.

You seem to be assuming that all neutrinos travel at the same speed.

I believe current understanding is that neutrinos have a very small rest mass (required for them to be able to change flavours).

If that's correct, presumably they travel at a speed slightly below C, and dependent on their energy (same as electrons, etc).

Not sure how that ties in with the supernova observations, though.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/08/2011 03:57 am
  What is the latest paper/communication with the formula for the mass variation of a charging capacitor ?
  I understand that an earlier version of that derivation was incorrect ?
 
  Sorry if that should be easy to find: for me it's not clear where to look since Dr. Woodward's web site is quite difficult to navigate and I can't find a web site for Paul March.

  The current one I have is from Cramer et al.'s paper:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdf (http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdf)

  There it is assumed that phi=c^2. Is this assumption still true in the latest version of Woodward's theory ?

Yes, it's still phi= c^2.

Woodward’s current M-E derivation can be found in his “Flux Capacitors and the Origins of Inertia" paper, which has been posted at this site before and is reposted below for you.  Woodward also has a still unpublished Stargate paper that adds some bells and whistles to this 2004 M-E derivation, but I can't post that one just yet.

And Paul March doesn't have a web site.

Best,
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: madsci on 10/08/2011 05:43 pm

Yes, it's still phi= c^2.

Woodward’s current M-E derivation can be found in his “Flux Capacitors and the Origins of Inertia" paper, which has been posted at this site before and is reposted below for you.  Woodward also has a still unpublished Stargate paper that adds some bells and whistles to this 2004 M-E derivation, but I can't post that one just yet.

And Paul March doesn't have a web site.

Best,

  Thanks for the paper and the additional info.
  Please post the Stargate paper when you can.
  I'll take a look at Woodard's web pages and at the paper. I'll probably have some questions, so please let me know if there is a better forum/website to discuss them or if I should post them in this thread.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 10/08/2011 06:06 pm
And Paul March doesn't have a web site.

Best,

either Paul March started talking about himself in 3rd person, or you are not who I thought you were! :D
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Joris on 10/08/2011 06:22 pm

I believe current understanding is that neutrinos have a very small rest mass (required for them to be able to change flavours).

It's because they carry away the observerd energy-loss in nuclear reactions.

This requires them to have mass.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 10/08/2011 06:30 pm
No, it requires them to have energy, without being photons or any other easily-detected agent.  That's all.  Even photons have both momentum and energy.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 10/08/2011 08:12 pm
Paul,

Is Eagleworks Laboratory already operational? Does it have a website?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Prober on 10/08/2011 08:34 pm
Can a sound cannon be used for Propulsion?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/09/2011 04:20 am
Paul,

Is Eagleworks Laboratory already operational? Does it have a website?

GeeGee:

The Eagleworks Lab at JSC is still in the buildup stage, but it should go operational by the ned of this year.  We alreasdy have two test articles to be tested when we get all the test equipment working with each other and all the JSC Lab paperwork signed off by the B15 facility managers.

And neither the Eagleworks Lab nor I have websites, yet. :)

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/09/2011 06:06 am

  There it is assumed that phi=c^2. Is this assumption still true in the latest version of Woodward's theory ?

It's still valid, but you need to include the future de Sitter event horizon's backward acting contribution to make it that way. That's something that recent convos that Jack Sarfatti has participated in have helped to confirm. If you don't include that, then phi/c^2 = 0.23 approximately.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: madsci on 10/09/2011 10:48 pm

It's still valid, but you need to include the future de Sitter event horizon's backward acting contribution to make it that way. That's something that recent convos that Jack Sarfatti has participated in have helped to confirm. If you don't include that, then phi/c^2 = 0.23 approximately.

  Interesting; do you have a link to a paper or at least its title ?
  If I understand correctly, you can still use phi=c^2 in the formula for the mass variation of a charging capacitor ?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/10/2011 02:55 am

It's still valid, but you need to include the future de Sitter event horizon's backward acting contribution to make it that way. That's something that recent convos that Jack Sarfatti has participated in have helped to confirm. If you don't include that, then phi/c^2 = 0.23 approximately.

  Interesting; do you have a link to a paper or at least its title ?
  If I understand correctly, you can still use phi=c^2 in the formula for the mass variation of a charging capacitor ?

This should be in Dr. Woodward's forthcoming book that he is working on now.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 10/12/2011 12:51 am
Posted this (http://www.astronautical.org/sites/default/files/spacetimes/spacetimes_48-6.pdf) article written by Harold White on his QVPT concept in the "fringe science" section on reddit and I received this response:

"Utterly ridiculous. The quantum vacuum, unlike anything else, is non-persistent. You cannot "squeeze" it to produce propulsion because it will respond to "squeezing" by lowering its energy density. Neither can you rarify it (by removing energy to do work) because it will simply make more of itself to compensate. It will do this faster than you can change the local conditions.

The conservation laws do not apply to the quantum vacuum. All of the math in this article treats the vacuum energy as a persistent medium in which energy is conserved.

The only way you can vary the density of the vacuum energy is by probabilistically limiting the range of energies that can exist. This is how the Casimir Effect works. In order to do this, you require a mass in position.

You can no more use the quantum vacuum for propulsion than you can use gravitational potential energy for propulsion. Which is precisely once, as the system collapses, then you have to move the matter back into position to do it again. Unless you violate conservation of energy to make matter appear in empty space, therefore, you cannot extract energy from the vacuum to do useful work.

Which should be obvious to everyone, since extracting energy from the vacuum would lower the local permittivity of free space and raise the speed of light. Seems unlikely.

Edit: The connection between the vacuum energy and gravitational potential energy may be more than just a useful analogy, but that is left as an exercise for the reader."

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Robert Forward's casimir battery thought experiment demonstrate that it is indeed possible to extract energy from the vacuum (albeit not being useful because it requires the same amount of work to pull the plates apart)?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/13/2011 02:34 am
I dont know about forward's casimir battery, but it is indeed possible to extract energy from the vacuum using tortional casimir forces, which is a thing currently under development by a nanotech team led by Adrian Tymes.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 10/14/2011 08:39 pm
I dont know about forward's casimir battery, but it is indeed possible to extract energy from the vacuum using tortional casimir forces, which is a thing currently under development by a nanotech team led by Adrian Tymes.
What happened with the casimir projects? No news lately...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/16/2011 07:28 pm
I dont know about forward's casimir battery, but it is indeed possible to extract energy from the vacuum using tortional casimir forces, which is a thing currently under development by a nanotech team led by Adrian Tymes.
What happened with the casimir projects? No news lately...

I've sent a message to Adrian to see whats what with his project.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 10/16/2011 09:21 pm
Huge casimir effect at finite temperature in electromagnetic Rindler space (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.1919v1.pdf)

If this works, it might make Casimir batteries a reality.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 10/17/2011 04:10 am
Paul, can you talk about these comments by TomClarke at Talk Polywell?

"Woodward's original derivation of mach effect could not determine its magnitude, except by a hand wavinbg argument that the constant of proportionality should be 1 in some natural units. (g/c^2 or something, I can't remember).

When it was clear any effect was much smaller than this (after woodwards more recent experiments, which were a lot more accurate) Woodward introduced a constant.

Of course, it makes the derivation much less convincing.

Tom"

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 10/18/2011 07:12 pm
I'm not sure what Tom was talking about either. Maybe he was confusing the discussion of phi for something else?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: UncleMatt on 10/23/2011 12:23 pm
I have been waiting all summer long for the experiments that stardrive said would be conducted on hardware he had recently built. Any news on that front? Did the experiments/testing ever take place? Any data to report if it did?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 10/24/2011 01:22 am
I have been waiting all summer long for the experiments that stardrive said would be conducted on hardware he had recently built. Any news on that front? Did the experiments/testing ever take place? Any data to report if it did?

Paul has said he would be doing the experiment during the fall. Not sure if he has done it already.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/24/2011 04:34 am
Guys:

I ran preliminary tests on my MLT-2010 at 1.95 MHz during the summer with only a few milli-Newtons to show for it.  I believe these disappointing results are due to the low piezoelectric response and its resulating low bulk acceleration of the ions in the N4700 dielectric used in this test article.  However, since I'm now working 3/4 time for the JSC EagleWorks lab run by Sonny White, I've had to make my own home lab testing take a back seat to the build-up of the Eagleworks test infrastructure at JSC.  (Follow the pay check.)  I'm hoping though to start testing again on my newest test article at 3.9 MHz during the first quarter of next year.  That test article's Y5R dielectric, which is similar to the dielectric used in my MLT-2004 test article, has a d33 piezoelectric response that is close to ~100 times larger than the N4700 dielectric's d33 response, which greatly improves its predicted performance, especially since I'm using 10X the active dielectric mass as compared to the MLT-2004 test article's ~40 grams.

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: UncleMatt on 10/24/2011 11:49 am
Thanks for the update, I look forward to your next test.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 10/24/2011 12:22 pm
"Neither can you rarify it (by removing energy to do work) because it will simply make more of itself to compensate. It will do this faster than you can change the local conditions."

...

"Which should be obvious to everyone, since extracting energy from the vacuum would lower the local permittivity of free space and raise the speed of light. Seems unlikely."

These two statements seem inconsistent with each other. I believe the first one is true.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 10/25/2011 07:39 pm
Paul,

Could you explain the following comments made by Tom Clarke on the polywell forum?

"Woodward's latest experiments rule out this value being ~1, because the mach effect is much smaller than that would imply.

that is all I'm saying. It does mean it is more likely mach effect does not exist. (That was always likely of course). But I think paul march still has some hopes, and perhaps would not agree with this.

Tom"
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/26/2011 05:13 am
Paul,

Could you explain the following comments made by Tom Clarke on the polywell forum?

"Woodward's latest experiments rule out this value being ~1, because the mach effect is much smaller than that would imply.

that is all I'm saying. It does mean it is more likely mach effect does not exist. (That was always likely of course). But I think paul march still has some hopes, and perhaps would not agree with this.

Tom"

GeeGee:

The data to date does NOT support Tom's above statement.  He needs to review and appreicate the myriad non-linear parameters that control the expression of the M-E or QVF/MHD models and understand that we are nowhere close to optimizing any of them in regards to thrust production.  The least biased results in this regards to the reality of the M-E is Woodward's M-E rotary test series in the 2008 to 2009 timeframe, where he observed and recorded for all a very large mass fluctuation signal commensurate with the M-E conjecture’s basic requirements.  Turing that mass fluctuation signal into a viable thruster design has been and is the tricky part in this business and it will take combing operating in the multi-MHz range while simultaneously generating hundreds of gees bulk acceleration in the dielectric ions, while maintaining the correct phasing between the applied E-fields, B-fields and acoutics waves.  Only then should we be worrying about getting the force rectification and phasing done correctly so you don't cancel out your hard earned gains on the mass/vacuum density fluctuation generation front.  It's not going to be easy, but it's not impossible either.

Best

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 10/26/2011 02:37 pm
Paul,

Judging from where Woodward & co. are now, would it be incorrect in saying it will take several years before any mainstream-attention worthy thrust is seen in the lab?

I'm beginning to think there won't be any serious progress on the M-E in the next year or two without any funding.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/27/2011 04:34 am
Paul,

Judging from where Woodward & co. are now, would it be incorrect in saying it will take several years before any mainstream-attention worthy thrust is seen in the lab?

I'm beginning to think there won't be any serious progress on the M-E in the next year or two without any funding.

GeeGee:

"...would it be incorrect in saying it will take several years before any mainstream-attention worthy thrust is seen in the lab?"

That depends on what you consider to be the criteria for "Mainstream-attention worthy thrust".  If you are talking about levitating M-E powered test articles running under their own self-contained power, several years probably is an accurate time estimate.  If you are talking about something a bit more modest like tens to hundreds milli-Newton, well that might be accomplished sometime next year.

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 10/28/2011 08:53 pm
I dont know about forward's casimir battery, but it is indeed possible to extract energy from the vacuum using tortional casimir forces, which is a thing currently under development by a nanotech team led by Adrian Tymes.
What happened with the casimir projects? No news lately...

I've sent a message to Adrian to see whats what with his project.
What did he said?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 10/28/2011 10:29 pm
I dont know about forward's casimir battery, but it is indeed possible to extract energy from the vacuum using tortional casimir forces, which is a thing currently under development by a nanotech team led by Adrian Tymes.
What happened with the casimir projects? No news lately...

I've sent a message to Adrian to see whats what with his project.
What did he said?

He said he ran short of funding a few years ago and I put him in touch with Dr. Jack Sarfatti, who is interested in the concept.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Anatol on 11/05/2011 06:28 pm
The concept of truly propellantless propulsions must stand on 2 elephants: the geomagnetic field and the solar radiation. The spacecraft is may be realized by means of the making of the metamaterial capable to move towards LEO under the action of mentioned factors combination.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 11/07/2011 04:44 am
The concept of truly propellantless propulsions must stand on 2 elephants: the geomagnetic field and the solar radiation. The spacecraft is may be realized by means of the making of the metamaterial capable to move towards LEO under the action of mentioned factors combination.

Sorry, but thats just wrong.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/07/2011 01:31 pm
Sounds to me like he's talking about solar sails.  Who knows how geomagnetic stuff ties in with that.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: madsci on 11/09/2011 02:28 pm
  Until the Woodward-Mach effect is experimentally established, it would be interesting to talk about the possibility that it is not real, or not conforming to the Woodward equations.

  So far, did any professional physicist offered well reasoned (and preferably well explained) arguments why the W-M effect might not be true ?
  The arguments could be either to say that
   -the mass variation is invalid
   -or that even if the mass variation is valid, the propellant-less thruster doesn't work as described by Woodward.

  Please post any arguments of this type you might know.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: D_Dom on 11/09/2011 03:10 pm

  So far, did any professional physicist offered well reasoned (and preferably well explained) arguments why the W-M effect might not be true ?
 
  Please post any arguments of this type you might know.

This thread runs to 105 pages, have you looked into it? You will find many back and forth conversations with reference to journal articles and published research.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: madsci on 11/09/2011 05:47 pm

This thread runs to 105 pages, have you looked into it? You will find many back and forth conversations with reference to journal articles and published research.

 I did read the last 20 or so pages, but it seems this theory dates at least from 2004 if not earlier. So maybe the objections to it are old too and not mentioned in this thread.
 I'll keep looking and pointers are appreciated.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Anatol on 11/10/2011 03:10 pm
The concept of truly propellantless propulsions must stand on 2 elephants: the geomagnetic field and the solar radiation. The spacecraft is may be realized by means of the making of the metamaterial capable to move towards LEO under the action of mentioned factors combination.

Sorry, but thats just wrong.

Experiment will solve it is right or wrong. I will report on the forum when I obtain results. (Solar sails have nothing to do with it.)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: D_Dom on 11/10/2011 03:29 pm

 I'll keep looking and pointers are appreciated.

Happy hunting, and welcome to the forum!

From a post by GeeGee on page 97
"
http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=James+F.+Woodward&sort=p_OnlineDate&sortorder=desc

There are at least five peer-reviewed papers directly relating to mach effects authored by Woodward."

And another from Paul March on page 95
"
When it comes to books on gravity, my preference is for Ciufolini and Wheeler's "Gravitation and Inertia".

http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Inertia-Ignazio-Ciufolini/dp/0691033234/ref=pd_sim_b_5 "

To address your point specifically, on page 90 Paul March again
"
Please note that S. Fuerst has two reference on the web That we've found so far, see below.  It appears that the CSUF and Stanford GRT folks need to talk...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sfuerst

"I'm a Post Doc at Stanford, currently working on General Relativistic Radiative Transfer."

http://stanfordwho.stanford.edu/SWApp/lookup?search=fuerst&key=DR916N632 "
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Moe Grills on 11/10/2011 11:04 pm
   :(

   Sigh!

   If only I could gather and harness the entire energy potential of
several billion stars; cram it into a space in front of me; warping the fabric of space-time so that 4-D space would shift dramatically to the point where I could journey many many parsecs in the space of an afternoon.

Sigh!

   Dream on.   :( 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 11/11/2011 12:51 am
   :(

   Sigh!

   If only I could gather and harness the entire energy potential of
several billion stars; cram it into a space in front of me; warping the fabric of space-time so that 4-D space would shift dramatically to the point where I could journey many many parsecs in the space of an afternoon.

Sigh!

   Dream on.   :( 

Not sure what you're on about...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: madsci on 11/11/2011 06:12 am
   :(

   Sigh!

   If only I could gather and harness the entire energy potential of
several billion stars; cram it into a space in front of me; warping the fabric of space-time so that 4-D space would shift dramatically to the point where I could journey many many parsecs in the space of an afternoon.

Sigh!

   Dream on.   :( 

Not sure what you're on about...

  Maybe he's talking about Alcubierre drives or stuff like that.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/11/2011 12:43 pm
Moe is probably dreaming about what he'd like to do, and not suggesting a scientific proposal to implement a specific propellantless drive system.  At least that's how I interpreted his final comment:  Dream on.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 11/12/2011 06:08 pm
Martin Tajmar retracts 2006 claims of gravitomagnetic version of frame-dragging as noise

http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-2048/24/12/125011
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: madsci on 11/13/2011 02:13 pm
  Reading through the paper, I couldn't help but wondering: what if the Woodward effect is also ruled out by more precise measurements ?

  It's a pity that the Tajmar effect is almost dead since it was one of the very few plausible means we have of "controlling gravity". Of course, another prominent one is the Woodward effect.
 
  Any encouraging new info regarding the Woodward effect to keep the hopes up ?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 11/13/2011 07:53 pm
It is certainly not very likely that mach effects will prove fruitful (I say this not because the theory has holes or anything, just that statistically, most novel physical predictions turn out to be erroneous.)

However, it should be said that the difference between Tajmar and Woodward is that Tajmar had no theoretical explanation for what he observed in his lab. It was really quite a shot in the dark to suspect that this one-time measurement was actually a novel physical force that contradicts GR.

On the other hand, if you read Woodward's published papers and the cited papers therein (which are quite good, by the way), there does seem to be theoretical justification for mach effects to exist. It all hinges on whether mach's principle is correct to any degree, and Woodward has made a strong case that it is in fact, correct.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 11/13/2011 09:16 pm
<I>...is that Tajmar had no theoretical explanation for what he observed in his lab.</I>

This is not correct. Heim Theory and Extended Heim Theory (Droescher and Hauser) were plausible explanations for the effect, if it were real. Since we now know it is not, we can put it all behind us and focus on the Woodward-Mach stuff.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 11/14/2011 04:56 am
I would argue that given the difference between what the mach effect should produce according to the theory (which agree appears to be fully consistent and at least plausible) vs.  what has been measured, it is essentially in the same realm as Tajmar's.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Moe Grills on 11/15/2011 07:09 pm
Moe is probably dreaming about what he'd like to do, and not suggesting a scientific proposal to implement a specific propellantless drive system.  At least that's how I interpreted his final comment:  Dream on.

You missed some subtle but sharp and brutal sarcasm in my post.
You and others on this topic (propellantless field propulsion) fall into the
same category as (life and time-wasting) dreamers.
Alas, the clock is ticking on all your lives; and what will go on your tombstones? ....Words to the effect that you wasted the gift of time, given you, imagining things that can NEVER come to pass?
There's the laws of Physics; and then there is FANTASY.
I think you badly blur the distinction.

You tell me, John, who here on this forum has the MEANS  to bring any of these fanta--(IDEAS) to fruition?
  Let's broaden the horizons then! Who on Earth? What nation or combination of nations on Earth can bring ANY of these "propellantless
field propulsion" ideas to pass?
  I will come right out and say it! Propellantless field propulsion is humbug!
     You think it will work? You think it can be made practical?
PROVE IT!
SHOW ME THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS!
SHOW ME A YOUTUBE LINK!

I'm not interested in your words, I'm interested in proof.
Good day.
 
SHOW ME THE MONEY
     
 

   The laws of physics
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Giovanni DS on 11/15/2011 07:50 pm
Since you asked for a youtube link as ultimate proof (and all in upper case)...

Actually there are emdrive "experimental results" on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3_aRiUXs

I imagine this removes doubts more than 106 pages of discussion (and relevant links).

PS. I don't think emdrive is real.

Giovanni
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 11/15/2011 08:45 pm

You and others on this topic (propellantless field propulsion) fall into the
same category as (life and time-wasting) dreamers.
Alas, the clock is ticking on all your lives; and what will go on your tombstones? ....Words to the effect that you wasted the gift of time, given you, imagining things that can NEVER come to pass?
There's the laws of Physics; and then there is FANTASY.


Skepticism is fine, but this is just ad-hominem. Don't presume to know what others want out of life or how they should use their time. I'm sure the same thing was said to people who dreamed about going to the moon or flying. Not to imply that propellantless propulsion will happen simply because people can dream it, but simply dismissing something out of hand  (as you are doing) is short sighted.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/16/2011 02:01 pm
Moe is probably dreaming about what he'd like to do, and not (1) suggesting a scientific proposal to implement a specific propellantless drive system.  At least that's how I interpreted his final comment:  Dream on.

(2) You missed some subtle but sharp and brutal sarcasm in my post.  (3) You and others on this topic ... fall into the same category as (life and time-wasting) dreamers.  Alas, the clock is ticking on all your lives; and what will go on your tombstones? ....Words to the effect that you wasted the gift of time, given you, imagining things that can NEVER come to pass?  There's the laws of Physics; and then there is FANTASY.  (4)I think you badly blur the distinction.

(5) You tell me, John, who here on this forum has the MEANS  to bring any of these ... (IDEAS) to fruition?

(6) Let's broaden the horizons then! ...

(7) ... Propellantless field propulsion is humbug!  You think it will work? You think it can be made practical?  PROVE IT! SHOW ME THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS!  SHOW ME A YOUTUBE LINK!

I'm not interested in your words, I'm interested in proof.  (8) Good day. SHOW ME THE MONEY  ...

(1) Good, then.  I'm correct in asserting that you're not "suggesting a scientific proposal".

(2) That I did; and I'm no amateur in the sarcasm department, either.  Even so, your analysis of my position is completely faulty:

(3) Accepting your minimalist categorization for the moment, you appear to have read the last page or two of posts, and have completely overlooked my skeptical lines of questioning earlier in the thread.  Much earlier.  The questions I asked then were simply not answered; rather my questions themselves were held up as evidence of my paltry math skills for the most part.  Since then, I have done a good bit of reading on the subject, and have gained some knowledge of relativity along the way.

FWIW, I have slogged thru Ciufolini & Wheeler in its entirety.  In fact, there is a typo on page 19, for one thing.  They, C&W, assert instantaneous action at a distance as a precept of Mach's principle: "Inertia here arises from mass there".

One thing I don't get is how they can draw conclusions about inertial frame dragging, while admitting that there is a good deal of "missing" mass in the universe.  I suppose, by your analysis, a discussion of that would be a "wasting" of the gift of time.  Their math, of course, is impenetrable to me in large part, but their descriptive speculations and conclusions are illuminating.  Section 4.8 Cosmology and Origin of Inertia is a good example. 

C&W admit, "with regard to the origin of inertia, we try to do the same in this section (and in this book): to determine and distinguish among some formulations and interpretations of the origin of inertia in Einstein geometrodynamics, in other metric theories, and in classical mechanics, and come up with experiments that might test these different interpretations".  Italics theirs.

True, C&W get a mite poetic here and there:  Page 274. "Adopting this language, we can declare that spacetime and inertia here do not see mass-energy there; they feel it".  The language they're adopting is that of Sciama and Ellis: "the Coulomb field of a charged particle that lies outside of our particle horizon is still inprinciple detectable today.  We can express this situation by saying that although we cannot see acharge outside of our light cone, we can certainly feel it".  As I put it; if I stomp on the planet right now, the beings on Arcturus will feel it immediately, at least in principle.  In the documentary film "A New Hope", the scientist Alec Guinness points out that he has "felt a major disturbance in the Force".

There is some other mass-energy force out there and it is a huge component of the whole; I continue to struggle with understanding it beyond my math abilities.  The rest of the universe outside of our light cone can simply not cease to exist without there being some effect here; not only that, but there are "things", like planets, for example, out there which we cannot see.  I guess.  I think that the prop-less propulsion folk believe that they have found some demonstrable evidence of this force.

(4) I wrote a few paragraphs only which informed your analysis, and you conclude grandly that I blur the distinction between fantasy and reality.  Certainly you are entitled to speak your mind; clearly there isn't all that much you are willing to offer to the discussion.

The experiments they propose are interesting, to me at least, and well within the capabilities of chemical rocketry, were they to be seriously considered for funding. 

(5)  Of course, you don't define "means".  It could mean money.  There's certainly not much being spent on Woodward and March's research, compared to other research programs.  Or do you mean "means", as in the theoretical means which would tend to lend credence to their theories?  You're certainly free to criticize my paltry checking account, OTOH; others have, but I'm not sure what they mean to prove by the criticism.

(6) Now you're flailing.

(7) It may very well be humbug, but it should be proven so the discussion could center on more productive issues.  As to your reliance on ewe-toob for any proof whatsoever, I'd have to leave you to your own devices on that one.

Regarding experimentation, tho.  I see that the proposed MIGO experiment is, for all intents and purposes, the Michelson Morley experiment redux, albeit on a more appropriate scale.  My intuitive sense is that there is a missing field, and I'd be happy to see it called the ether.  And frame dragging may be related to finding this other field.  The LAGOS experiment would be pretty cool too, but I don't see it happening any time soon.  It sounds very expensive to develop and launch.  Perfect for SLS.  I'm sure a few hints could be taken from the JWST proposal in initially vastly underestimating the difficulties of placing and maintaining such a huge (10^^7km) sat array in place, over a period of ten years.  But my viewpoint might be a tad sarcastic.

In any case, you're going to have to wait for the experimental results.

(8) There's always the PageDn key.

... Don't presume to know what others want out of life or how they should use their time.  ...

QFT.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 11/16/2011 03:30 pm

As to your reliance on ewe-toob for any proof whatsoever, I'd have to leave you to your own devices on that one.



I missed that point.

The very fact that Moe Grills thinks a youtube video is considered experimental evidence makes me question whether he understands the scientific process or "the laws of physics!" as he likes to tout.

Just FYI Moe, most of this thread is about James Woodward's mach effects, which are published in scientific journals. It doesn't break any laws of physics, but it does assume Mach's principle is essentially true. I'd suggest reading Sciama's 1953 dissertation, Ken Nordtvedt's 1988 paper on the existence of gravitomagnetism and Derek Raine's paper showing Mach's principle is correct in all FRW cosmologies to understand Woodward's line of reasoning.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/16/2011 03:45 pm
Ken Nordtvedt's 1988 paper on the existence of gravitomagnetism and Derek Raine's paper showing Mach's principle is correct in all FRW cosmologies ..

Links please?  I'm a mite lazy on looking for these at the moment, and I haven't read them.  I do have  and have read Sciama's 1953 dissertation.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 11/16/2011 04:01 pm
Ken Nordtvedt's 1988 paper on the existence of gravitomagnetism and Derek Raine's paper showing Mach's principle is correct in all FRW cosmologies ..

Links please?  I'm a mite lazy on looking for these at the moment, and I haven't read them.  I do have  and have read Sciama's 1953 dissertation.

Nordtvedt's paper

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t834127482nuv384/

Here is Raine's paper

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1975MNRAS.171..507R/0000509.000.html

Edit: Linked the wrong paper by Raine. This is the correct one, titled "Mach's Principle in general relativity."
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 11/16/2011 11:02 pm
Moe is probably dreaming about what he'd like to do, and not suggesting a scientific proposal to implement a specific propellantless drive system.  At least that's how I interpreted his final comment:  Dream on.

You missed some subtle but sharp and brutal sarcasm in my post.
You and others on this topic (propellantless field propulsion) fall into the
same category as (life and time-wasting) dreamers.
Alas, the clock is ticking on all your lives; and what will go on your tombstones? ....Words to the effect that you wasted the gift of time, given you, imagining things that can NEVER come to pass?
There's the laws of Physics; and then there is FANTASY.
I think you badly blur the distinction.

You tell me, John, who here on this forum has the MEANS  to bring any of these fanta--(IDEAS) to fruition?
  Let's broaden the horizons then! Who on Earth? What nation or combination of nations on Earth can bring ANY of these "propellantless
field propulsion" ideas to pass?
  I will come right out and say it! Propellantless field propulsion is humbug!
     You think it will work? You think it can be made practical?
PROVE IT!
SHOW ME THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS!
SHOW ME A YOUTUBE LINK!

I'm not interested in your words, I'm interested in proof.
Good day.
 
SHOW ME THE MONEY
     
 

   The laws of physics

Dr. Woodward and others have released a lot of results. Apparently you can't read.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/17/2011 01:34 am
GeeGee:  Thanks for the links.  Managed to download Raine's paper, but the other one seems to be behind Springer's paywall.  Raine's paper will slow me down enough tho.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 11/17/2011 01:52 am
John,

That's strange, that link showed the full article for me before but now it's not for some reason. Try this link:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t834127482nuv384/fulltext.pdf
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/17/2011 12:16 pm
GeeGee:  Thanks.  That seems to have worked.  i wish I could get paid by the word for just reading.  I'd be pretty well off.  Dream on, I guess.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 11/22/2011 01:14 am
For anyone that's interested, here is Nembo Buldrini's paper on using a different experimental method of verifying mach effects (impulsive forces caused by non-uniform magnetic fields):

Possible Mach Effects in Bodies Accelerated by Non-Uniform Magnetic Fields  (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=277348&_user=10&_pii=S187538921100575X&_check=y&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=2011-12-31&wchp=dGLbVlt-zSkzV&md5=0fa2fe1db35762f8a523d019d1033ca9/1-s2.0-S187538921100575X-main.pdf)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: ScottL on 11/27/2011 11:43 pm
Moe clearly does not work in the scientific field and providing him proper research is most likely a waste of time. He's of the mind that if you don't have proof now, it's not possible.....fortunately for us, that's not true in reality. Most notable scientists and physicists had theories which took time to devise experiments to prove. In this case experiments have been conducted and research published, but that's not enough for Mr. Moe.

He also fails, for some odd reason to realize that in no way does Woodward's research on Mach Effect violate the laws of physics. If found true, it rather compliments them nicely in my opinion. That of course is if its true, which one should be rightly skeptical for now, however; this does not mean you shouldn't be open minded to well developed science.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 11/28/2011 04:30 am
Well, "in no way" might be streching it. Most proponents agree it that if true it would require radical revision of our understanding of causality-- i.e. the speed-of-light issue.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 11/28/2011 07:19 pm
Well, "in no way" might be streching it. Most proponents agree it that if true it would require radical revision of our understanding of causality-- i.e. the speed-of-light issue.

Mach effects may or may not be related to issues of causality. The most controversial aspect of the M-E equation (possible generation of negative mass-energy to create wormholes, warp drives, etc.) has not been thoroughly investigated.

However, transient mass fluctuations seem to be consistent with the laws of physics as long as you are willing to accept Mach's principle is true.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mlorrey on 11/29/2011 04:50 am
Well, "in no way" might be streching it. Most proponents agree it that if true it would require radical revision of our understanding of causality-- i.e. the speed-of-light issue.

Mach effects may or may not be related to issues of causality. The most controversial aspect of the M-E equation (possible generation of negative mass-energy to create wormholes, warp drives, etc.) has not been thoroughly investigated.

However, transient mass fluctuations seem to be consistent with the laws of physics as long as you are willing to accept Mach's principle is true.

Well, it is accepted physics that matter changes mass with velocity, so the idea of mass fluctuations has been accepted long before Woodward came on the scene.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 12/13/2011 04:59 pm
New article on the M-E at NBF

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/higgs-and-mach-effect.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 12/13/2011 08:34 pm
Here's a comment made by Goatguy that I found to be very telling:

"PS: the "uses-restmas-of-the-universe" is a singular piece of bullsnot, if I ever heard one.  The whole and entire effect is one of changing the masses of the two charged plates.  Period.  No "universe tug" involved. 

=GG=  (and I've pointed this out to you before)"

It seems to me Goatguy refuses to understand (or accept) how mach's principle plays a central role in the M-E. Conserving momentum globally by "tugging on the universe" is a direct consequence of mach's principle.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 12/16/2011 07:59 pm
reply by Steve Lajoie at Physics Forum Mach Effect thread:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=259842&goto=newpost

Quote
The idea is that a the mass of the piezoelectric material changes with the square of the rate of change of the energy in the material. You can even make the mass go negative.

Note: This is a violation of conservation of energy. You can lift an arbitrarily large mass upwards in a gravitational field with an arbitrarily small amount of energy, as only the square of the change in energy wrt time causes the mass change. One can then remove the changing energy that is applied to the capacitor and "drop" the mass (say, with a string on a generator) and obtain a net positive energy output.

To test this effect of mass change, in 2009 I put a piezoelectric capacitor on a tuning fork and applied a voltage at the resonate frequency of the tuning fork + capacitor device. This would amplify the expected magnitude of the Woodward effect so it could be measured. The experimental design was such that I expected to see the fork vibrate if a changing mass was affected by gravity on the fork. I measured the amplitude of the tuning fork with an inductive sensor and I had worked out the parameters of the fork so I could tell with 2 digit precision what the driving force (the mass change under the force of gravity) was. A "naive" application of the Woodward equation would have been detected, tho' it was argued that the Woodward equation was a difference equation and I was doing it wrong.

After accounting for the piezoelectric effect itself and for effects of the earth's magnetic field by nulling them out, I could measure no change in mass of the capacitor.

I found no mass change. Zippo. Nada. Zilch.

This experiment was done for my master's project under the Guidance of Dr. John G. Cramer at the University of Washington. We did not publish because I more tests were required for verification of the null result. As Dr. Cramer was retiring and I was graduating, I didn't do more testing.

I would note that there is a math error in the derivation of the Woodward effect's theory. If one uses Sciama's result of (Phi+phi)/c^2 = -1/G, one cannot treat the speed of light as a constant and phi as a variable.

This experimental result could be disputed by noting that I was checking for a gravitational mass change and not an inertial mass change. The original experimental design (aka "Mach Guitar") checked for an inertial mass change. However, the original experiment couldn't be done as the mass of the capacitor significantly changed the resonate frequency of the Mach Guitar. I mathematically studied the experiment, and found that I needed a guitar "string" as thick as a tuning fork tine.

This experiment was difficult to construct. I had planned on repeating the experiment to do a statistical study of the results, and to try driving the fork to see if I could detect a change in INERTIAL mass, but personal issues and a lack of a High voltage amplifier prevented me from proceeding. I also was fairly confident in my initial result, and felt it was a bit like beating a dead horse.


can Paul March comment on this, preferentally directly on the above thread?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 12/17/2011 01:10 am
This is awesome! Lays it out in detail. Throw M-E on the 'interesting, but ultimately nutty' pile.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 12/18/2011 01:49 am
Yeah, I remember asking about Mach Effect in PhysicsForums way back. Unfortunately, its reliance on things like Non-Locality put it outside of what's realistically possible. Too bad - I guess we'll just have to keep looking for some other macguffin.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 12/18/2011 02:19 am
Don't be so quick to call this an open and shut case. We have not heard anything from Paul or Woodward on this matter yet.

The need for non-locality (as I understand it) stems from the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces. This can only be explained in one of two ways: elliptical, instantaneous constraint equations as described by Ciufolini and Wheeler, or the advanced/retarded waves interpretation of electrodynamics.

Here's Ron Stahl's thoughts on the matter (on Steve's experiment)

http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2215&start=720
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/18/2011 04:10 am
Don't be so quick to call this an open and shut case. We have not heard anything from Paul or Woodward on this matter yet.

The need for non-locality (as I understand it) stems from the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces. This can only be explained in one of two ways: elliptical, instantaneous constraint equations as described by Ciufolini and Wheeler, or the advanced/retarded waves interpretation of electrodynamics.

Here's Ron Stahl's thoughts on the matter (on Steve's experiment)

http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2215&start=720

GeeGee:

Woodward's M-E conjecture is selfconsistent, but still incomplete IMO since it still does not include QM effects that we know exists in real world components like ceramic dielectrics.  In the end though the only thing that will really matter is one of us floating the test article into the conference room under its own power.  We can then argue which of our cherished scientific paradigms will have to scuttled to explain this fact and then replace it with another equally bright idea of the day.  Meanwhile back to the lab...

Best,
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 12/18/2011 04:37 am

GeeGee:

Woodward's M-E conjecture is selfconsistent, but still incomplete IMO since it still does not include QM effects that we know exists in real world components like ceramic dielectrics.  In the end though the only thing that will really matter is one of us floating the test article into the conference room under its own power.  We can then argue which of our cherished scientific paradigms will have to scuttled to explain this fact and then replace it with another equally bright idea of the day.  Meanwhile back to the lab...

Best,

What about Steve's claim of an error in the derivation itself?

Quote
I would note that there is a math error in the derivation of the Woodward effect's theory. If one uses Sciama's result of (Phi+phi)/c^2 = -1/G, one cannot treat the speed of light as a constant and phi as a variable.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/19/2011 03:49 pm

GeeGee:

Woodward's M-E conjecture is selfconsistent, but still incomplete IMO since it still does not include QM effects that we know exists in real world components like ceramic dielectrics.  In the end though the only thing that will really matter is one of us floating the test article into the conference room under its own power.  We can then argue which of our cherished scientific paradigms will have to scuttled to explain this fact and then replace it with another equally bright idea of the day.  Meanwhile back to the lab...

Best,

What about Steve's claim of an error in the derivation itself?

Quote
I would note that there is a math error in the derivation of the Woodward effect's theory. If one uses Sciama's result of (Phi+phi)/c^2 = -1/G, one cannot treat the speed of light as a constant and phi as a variable.

GeeGee:

Here is Woodward's reply:

"Paul,

There is no mistake in the derivation.  Lajoie's experiment was done ignoring the bulk acceleration condition.  That is, it made no provision for a 1 omega acceleration of the capacitors in question as they were being charged and discharged.  As for why he didn't do more, sounds like an excuse.  I offered to provide the additional capacitors needed to do the further work at the time and was ignored."

Form your own conclusions."


I also just posted this reply of my own to Aceshigh & GIThruster about the same U of Washington M-E experiment topic:

GIThruster & Aceshigh:

A clarification: Woodward's SPESIF-2011 Stargate paper not only requires bulk acceleration relative to the distant stars of the energy storing dielectric to express the M-E, but also requires bulk acceleration in the vector direction of the applied E-field in the dP/dt energy storing dielectric. In other words, the M-E's predicted transient mass fluctuations can only be expressed under a very specific set of circumstances, (dv/dt & dv/dt direction, dP/dt and wave-front phasing), and if one does not supply ALL of these elements concurrently and in concert with each other, the expected M-E mass transient signal will NOT be expressed. And that assumes you are using a rotary experiment such as Woodward used in the 2008/2009 time period as GIThruster already noted. If you are trying to detect a unidirectional force from an M-E based thruster system as your M-E proof of principle test, the requirements list needed for success just got a lot longer than just using the rotary based experiments.

BTW, running any of these types of M-E experiments at hundreds or even thousands of Hz frequencies is just plain asking for failure due to the very small predicted mass fluctuations/forces generated at these low operating frequencies, dependent on the applied bulk acceleration & direction. Only Woodward’s attention to detail in his 2008/2009 rotary experiment and the application of up to 800 gees of bulk acceleration allowed him to demonstrate the M-E at his chosen operating frequency of 40.0 kHz. And that was only after he found out that the mundane voltage squared (V^2) electrostrictive signal also generated by the Y5U ceramic used in the experiment actually drives the generation of the M-E signal. The devil IS in the details…

Best,
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 12/20/2011 06:16 am
Now I'm kind of curious why Steve would neglect the bulk acceleration condition. This is just my opinion, but it seems from Steve's tone that he is not at all interested in pursuing "fringey" physics.

By the way Paul, there was a recent paper published by Brazilian physicists on substituting gravity for the Higgs as the mechanism for generating mass (though I'm not sure substitute is a good word here, as Wilczek has pointed out several times that the majority of mass of ordinary matter has origins that have nothing to do with the Higgs) that Woodward and co might be interested in. The authors calls this "modified mach's principle." Is it a sign of mach's principle making a return in theoretical physics?

The gravitational mechanism to generate mass II (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1111/1111.4228v1.pdf)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Nathan on 12/20/2011 06:32 am
Now I'm kind of curious why Steve would neglect the bulk acceleration condition. This is just my opinion, but it seems from Steve's tone that he is not at all interested in pursuing "fringey" physics.

By the way Paul, there was a recent paper published by Brazilian physicists on substituting gravity for the Higgs as the mechanism for generating mass (though I'm not sure substitute is a good word here, as Wilczek has pointed out several times that the majority of mass of ordinary matter has origins that have nothing to do with the Higgs) that Woodward and co might be interested in. The authors calls this "modified mach's principle." Is it a sign of mach's principle making a return in theoretical physics?

The gravitational mechanism to generate mass II (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1111/1111.4228v1.pdf)
Machs principle never left theoretical physics
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 12/20/2011 07:56 pm
Machs principle never left theoretical physics

No, but it's certainly not discussed as much. All the attention has been focused on dark energy, dark matter and the Higgs mechanism.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 12/21/2011 04:32 am
Machs principle never left theoretical physics

No, but it's certainly not discussed as much. All the attention has been focused on dark energy, dark matter and the Higgs mechanism.

GeeGee:

Jack Sarfatti's comments on the Mach's Principle and mass paper you pointed to is attached.  Note the yellow highlights and comments embedded in the paper by Sarfatti.

PS; Woodward liked the paper as well.

Best,
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 12/21/2011 05:56 pm
Paul, any chance you guys might contact Mario Novello or Eduardo Bittencourt?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/24/2011 02:40 pm
This month's Photonics Spectra had an interesting picture of what gravity waves might look like.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 12/26/2011 12:13 am
Paul,

Has Goatguy and Sebtel's objections on the M-E ever been discussed on Woodward's mailing list? Did Woodward respond to them?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 12/28/2011 04:50 am
Loll and Ambjorn have done some CDT computer modeling that shows that wormholes are not possible.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.0352v1.pdf

Can anyone here comment on this?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 12/31/2011 12:46 am
Not qualified to comment on that, but my guess is this has to do with the quantum foam picture where tiny wormholes pop into and out of existence.

You might have better luck e-mailing this as a new topic to Woodwards group.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 01/16/2012 09:01 pm
In his wormhole paper, Woodward said:

"What about Heisenberg’s UP [Uncertainty Principle] argument about energy and confinement size?
Well, if you believe that the UP is a statement about our ability to measure reality, rather than an assertion
about the inherent nature of reality, you won’t have a problem with the negative bare mass ADM electron.
After all, how big something is is not the same thing as how accurately you can measure its position. If
you think the UP is an assertion, with Bohr and his followers, about the inherent nature of reality, you
will have a problem with all this. And you won’t be likely to think it possible to build stargates, ever.
You may be right."

This article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120116095529.htm) came out today which seems to suggest Bohr's interpretation of the HUP is correct (unless I misunderstood). What are the implications for the ADM negative bare mass solution?

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 02/08/2012 12:03 pm
If I was a billionaire and I give you 10 billion dollars and say to you: "I wanna have a propellantless field propulsion in 5 years.", Will you get it??
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/08/2012 08:19 pm
If I was a billionaire and I give you 10 billion dollars and say to you: "I wanna have a propellantless field propulsion in 5 years.", Will you get it??

Paul could probably provide a better answer to that, but Jim has mentioned on radio shows and on the mailing list that breakthrough propulsion research is very cheap. About $100,000 would probably be enough to see unambiguous results (meaning much higher thrust levels that could not be explained by anything other than a novel effect).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/09/2012 04:33 am
If I was a billionaire and I give you 10 billion dollars and say to you: "I wanna have a propellantless field propulsion in 5 years.", Will you get it??

Paul could probably provide a better answer to that, but Jim has mentioned on radio shows and on the mailing list that breakthrough propulsion research is very cheap. About $100,000 would probably be enough to see unambiguous results (meaning much higher thrust levels that could not be explained by anything other than a novel effect).


Guys:

Woodward has already demonstrated +/-10 micro-Newton in vacuum using his latest shuttler design running at ~40 kHz.  My MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles repeateldy demonstrated 1-to-10 milli-Newton in Faraday shielded configurations several years ago while in air since I couldn't afford a working vacuum system at the time.  We are now trying to replicate those results under a hard vacuum in the JSC Eagleworks Lab when we finally get the lab up and running, hopefully in 2-to-3 months now.  Past that it all depends what the replication investigation efforts bring to us.  If we again see what I saw in the home lab back in the 2004 through 2006 time frame, then we crank up the power and frequency to see if the MLT-2004_Rev-A can generate 100's of milli-Newtons running at 3.68 MHz on our new torque pendulum system.  However, if we see nothing out of this newly revidsed test article, then this could all have been just a bad dream for me.  Considering Woodward's experimental results to date though, I'm betting on seeing at least the same 4-to-10 milli-Newtons I obsered before.  Cross your fingers...

Best,

Paul M. 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/09/2012 05:15 am
Paul,

I don't think anyone has asked you this but when you ran the experiment in 2004, the bulk acceleration condition was not known, correct?

If so, how can you be confident in the results?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 02/09/2012 05:45 am


Guys:

Woodward has already demonstrated +/-10 micro-Newton in vacuum using his latest shuttler design running at ~40 kHz.  My MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles repeateldy demonstrated 1-to-10 milli-Newton in Faraday shielded configurations several years ago while in air since I couldn't afford a working vacuum system at the time.  We are now trying to replicate those results under a hard vacuum in the JSC Eagleworks Lab when we finally get the lab up and running, hopefully in 2-to-3 months now.  Past that it all depends what the replication investigation efforts bring to us.  If we again see what I saw in the home lab back in the 2004 through 2006 time frame, then we crank up the power and frequency to see if the MLT-2004_Rev-A can generate 100's of milli-Newtons running at 3.68 MHz on our new torque pendulum system.  However, if we see nothing out of this newly revidsed test article, then this could all have been just a bad dream for me.  Considering Woodward's experimental results to date though, I'm betting on seeing at least the same 4-to-10 milli-Newtons I obsered before.  Cross your fingers...

Best,

Paul M. 
That's nearly an ion engine thrust :o
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 02/09/2012 07:42 pm
Paul,

I don't think anyone has asked you this but when you ran the experiment in 2004, the bulk acceleration condition was not known, correct?

If so, how can you be confident in the results?

GeeGee:

“If so, how can you be confident in the results?”

I’m not sure what you are trying to ask here.  The experimental results are what they are, what was lacking at the time in 2004 was a rational explanation for WHY the MLT-2004 thrust signature was approximately two orders of magnitude higher than predicted by Andrew Palfreyman’s linearized Mach-Effect (M-E) math model derivation, both of which were reported on in my AIP/STAIF-2004 and STAIF-2006 publications.  However, you are right in that I didn't know during the last half of 2003 when I designed and built the MLT-2004 that the bulk acceleration of the majority of the cap dielectric’s ions was a major requirement for the expression of the M-E.  All I knew at the time was that just the Ti ions in the barium titanate unit crystal cell (UCC) had to move in some manner while storing energy in the local UCC electric fields.   What I did end up knowing by the middle of 2004 was that the recorded MLT-2004 thrust signature was approximately two orders of magnitude higher than predicted by Andrew’s M-E math model.   So I went looking for the reasons why this might be the case, and because I knew that the M-E was based on inertial effects, any phenomenon that induces inertial effects was fair game to investigate.  Therefore for me the first likely candidate for this larger MLT-2004 thrust signature was taking into account the piezoelectric effect that induces bulk motions in the cap’s surfaces, since this extra motion would enhance the already present Ti ionic motions in the BaTiO3 UCC.

In experimental physics as in everything else we do, on occasion, out of no particular brilliance on your own part, one gets lucky.  It turned out that out of pure dumb luck, I had picked the one Cera-Mite based BaTiO3 Y5R dielectric that just so happened to have the highest piezoelectric response of all of the Vishay/Cera-Mite's family of BaTiO3 ceramic alloys, which includes their N4700, Y5R, Y5U and Z5U ceramic mixes.   I originally picked the Y5R material because I was looking for a more thermally stable material than Woodward’s Y5U dielectric and since the Cera-Mite Y5R dielectric had ~1/2 the dielectric constant of Woodward’s Y5U dielectric, it should and was a lot more thermally stable with temperature variations, a problem that was and still is a problem with Woodward’s test articles that still use the Y5U material.   Now I did not discover until during the 2005-to-2007 time frame that I had really lucked out with the choice of the Y5R dielectric.  That period was when I was testing the piezoelectric response of over 100 caps of each of Cera-Mite’s four main dielectric blends along with dozens of caps from several other ceramic capacitor vendors such MuRata, AVX, HEI and Xircom.   What these piezo tests told me was that Woodward’s Y5U ceramic alloy had an order of magnitude lower d33 piezo response than what my chosen Cera-Mite Y5U dielectric had.  And when Nembo Buldrini finally pointed out to Woodward in ~2008 that the M-E derivation inherently required the bulk acceleration of the locally accelerated dielectric relative to the rest of the cosmos, the dots from all my piezo testing started to click together for me and the rest of the M-E group.   And once I figured out how to calculate the surface accelerations of the dielectric disc’s piezo induced surface motions over the last year or so, and how to apply this knowledge to the M-E and QVF/MHD math models, the MLT-2004’s test results were no longer two orders of magnitude down from experimental results, but more like within a factor of two of the recorded results. 

Now Mother Nature & Murphy being what they are, I’m not expecting the new MLT-2004_Rev-A testing program at the JSC Eagleworks lab to go at all smoothly as I would like, but with the Woodward’s continuing semi-positive, (thrust levels less than 100uN), test results over the years and my own “Beginners Luck” tests leading the way, we hopefully will have some interesting milli-Newton times ahead of us in the lab this spring.   

Best,

Paul M.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 02/11/2012 09:37 pm
Great explanation Paul! I wondered the same thing as Gee Gee, especially back a few years ago when it seemed that you were going to have to abandon the substantial work done on the 2008 MLT.

Things are looking up quite a bit now by comparison. I am eagerly awaiting publication of Woodward's book.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 02/11/2012 10:04 pm
It's just a shame that progress is so slow, with the shoe-string budget and all.

Paul:

Thanks for answering. It seems I was confused on the experimental setup and how these things work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 03/07/2012 11:23 pm
I don't know if anyone's heard, but STAIF is back in the form of STAIF II. Here is the agenda for March 13th.

http://www.staif2.org/images/pdf/STAIF_II_Agenda_12.pdf

Note Woodward's paper is titled "Massless propulsion". This is the first time I've heard M-E propulsion called that.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: BarryKirk on 03/08/2012 12:06 pm
Oh good... I was hoping somebody would post to this thread and bump it back up.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 03/08/2012 04:35 pm
I don't know if anyone's heard, but STAIF is back in the form of STAIF II. Here is the agenda for March 13th.

http://www.staif2.org/images/pdf/STAIF_II_Agenda_12.pdf

Note Woodward's paper is titled "Massless propulsion". This is the first time I've heard M-E propulsion called that.

I notice Woodward is no longer moderating panels as he did in previous STAIFs.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 03/08/2012 06:31 pm
Actually according to the agenda he was the chair for one of the panels this year.

http://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/SPESIF2012_callforpapers.pdf
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 03/08/2012 11:43 pm
are SPESIF and STAIF affiliated?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 03/23/2012 01:03 pm
Harry White's and Paul March's PDF at NETS2012 about "Advanced Propulsion Physics: Harnessing the Quantum Vacuum"

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3082.pdf
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 03/23/2012 06:01 pm
Harry White's and Paul March's PDF at NETS2012 about "Advanced Propulsion Physics: Harnessing the Quantum Vacuum"

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3082.pdf

Quote
Historical test results
have yielded thrust levels of between 1000-4000 micro-
Newtons, specific force performance of 0.1N/kW,
and an equivalent specific impulse of ~1x1012 seconds.

Where does that Isp come from?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 03/23/2012 07:10 pm
I wouldn't put too much stock into Harold White's explanation for anomalous thrust. His hypothesis has never been peer reviewed.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 03/25/2012 08:16 pm
additional PDF's:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936_2011016932.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf

found here:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/03/advanced-propulsion-physics-harnessing.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mikegi on 03/26/2012 04:49 am
I saw in one of the papers above that Puthoff's paper, "Ground State of Hydrogen ...", was referenced (he's somewhat nutty). A more serious investigation was done by Cole at BU:

http://www.bu.edu/simulation/publications/dcole/PDF/SwedenCole2005.pdf

Doesn't explain preferred states but it's still interesting.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: UncleMatt on 03/26/2012 07:24 pm
Can Paul please tell us what promise, if any, he thinks graphene capacitors may hold for his research?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 03/26/2012 07:56 pm
Can Paul please tell us what promise, if any, he thinks graphene capacitors may hold for his research?

If you are referring to graphene based electrochemical super capacitors, see: http://www.ias.ac.in/chemsci/Pdf-Jan2008/9.pdf , I see no applications for it in the M-E or QVF venues at this time.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 03/27/2012 04:06 am
Harry White's and Paul March's PDF at NETS2012 about "Advanced Propulsion Physics: Harnessing the Quantum Vacuum"

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3082.pdf

Quote
Historical test results
have yielded thrust levels of between 1000-4000 micro-
Newtons, specific force performance of 0.1N/kW,
and an equivalent specific impulse of ~1x1012 seconds.

Where does that Isp come from?

cheers, Martin

See attached slide.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: GeeGee on 03/27/2012 05:09 am
I'm hoping you can re-create that thrust signal this summer. It would be a major advance for M-E research if you guys could get repeatable milliNewton thrust.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: simonbp on 03/27/2012 04:55 pm
Any idea what the ISS DTO would involve? Presumably a recreation of the torsion-bar setup, but externally mounted to get real vacuum?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 03/27/2012 10:06 pm
Harry White's and Paul March's PDF at NETS2012 about "Advanced Propulsion Physics: Harnessing the Quantum Vacuum"

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3082.pdf

Quote
Historical test results
have yielded thrust levels of between 1000-4000 micro-
Newtons, specific force performance of 0.1N/kW,
and an equivalent specific impulse of ~1x1012 seconds.

Where does that Isp come from?

cheers, Martin

See attached slide.

Thanks, but I'm not seeing that derivation unless your power source is pure matter/anti-matter with 100% conversion efficiency to usable power. ISTR you mentioning a spacecraft a while ago powered by an H2/O2 power-cell. By retaining the reactants, only the mass of the power output (by E=MC2) goes overboard.

If I've remembered that correctly, that seems to be completely the wrong way to analyse the situation. Instead, you are producing power by reacting H2 & O2. To calculate Isp correctly, the reaction product (water) should be sent overboard, and the thrust equated to the rate of consumption / disposal of hydrolox.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 03/28/2012 04:45 pm
Harry White's and Paul March's PDF at NETS2012 about "Advanced Propulsion Physics: Harnessing the Quantum Vacuum"

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3082.pdf

Quote
Historical test results
have yielded thrust levels of between 1000-4000 micro-
Newtons, specific force performance of 0.1N/kW,
and an equivalent specific impulse of ~1x1012 seconds.

Where does that Isp come from?

cheers, Martin

See attached slide.

Thanks, but I'm not seeing that derivation unless your power source is pure matter/anti-matter with 100% conversion efficiency to usable power. ISTR you mentioning a spacecraft a while ago powered by an H2/O2 power-cell. By retaining the reactants, only the mass of the power output (by E=MC2) goes overboard.

If I've remembered that correctly, that seems to be completely the wrong way to analyse the situation. Instead, you are producing power by reacting H2 & O2. To calculate Isp correctly, the reaction product (water) should be sent overboard, and the thrust equated to the rate of consumption / disposal of hydrolox.

cheers, Martin

Martin:

   Try to remember that we are NOT talking about rockets in this example, which you are trying to do, though I tried to use a standard rocket parameter to bridge the gap between the two propulsion concepts and to demonstrate the performance enhancements that such a field propulsion device could bring to bear on the tyranny of the rocket equation.   Instead we are talking about gravity/inertial (G/I) field propulsion systems that use the ambient G/I field to generate the Mach-Effect (M-E) momentum transfers from the vehicle to the field and thus to the rest of the universe that created this field in the first place.  So the G/I field propulsion process does not require the expulsion of mass or E&M radiation away from the vehicle to generate the noted reactive forces, for it directly reacts with the G/I field instead just like a ship uses its propeller to interact with the ocean's water to generate thrust.   So per Woodward's M-E conjecture, the G/I momentum transfer expressed in any M-E based propulsion device comes directly about from cyclically bulk accelerating a locally contained mass that is concurrently experiencing a time rate of change of energy and power along with a third delta-mass rectifying force that converts these mass fluctuations into a unidirectional force.   Past that you need to read Woodward’s papers if you still have questions.

BTW, in Sonny White’s Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation (QVF) conjecture, Woodward’s G/I field is replaced with the Quantum Electrodynamic Vacuum field and the local reactive forces are generated and conveyed by momentum fluxes created in this QED vacuum field by the same process used to create momentum fluxes in the G/I field, but Sonny uses MHD plasma rules to quantify this local momentum interaction where Woodward does not.  As to whether Woodward’s or White’s approach to this propellantless propulsion problem turns out to be closer to our reality is yet to be determined, but obtaining comprehensive and high quality data on these types of propulsion devices is the only way we will find out.  In the end analysis though, Woodward and/or White’s conjectures may turn out to be wrong or just provide us some partial insights into the truths needed to build the impulse and warp drives needed to build our starships.

PS to GeeGee:  There are many forms and venues for scientific peer review and publishing papers in a peer reviewed journal is but one of them.  Let me say that Sonny's QVF/MHD conjecture has passed muster in at least one think tank in the USA that can't be mentioned at the moment, so we press forward to generate data that will prove or disprove Sonny's current QVF/MHD conjecture, while Woodward does the same for his.  Let's hope that at least one of them is near the mark...

Paul March
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: kurt9 on 03/29/2012 02:44 pm
And we're to have a definitive answer to both concepts by the end of this summer. Is this correct?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 03/30/2012 04:37 am
And we're to have a definitive answer to both concepts by the end of this summer. Is this correct?

Dr. White and I hope to have at least two Q-Thruster test articles run through their paces by the end of September.  We also hope to have started the warp-field interferometer work as well, but Sonny keeps getting dragged off to work on other more pressing NASA projects at the moment, so we will see how far that Eagleworks project gets when Sept shows up. 

As far as the M-E work is concerned, you'll have to ask Dr. Woodward what his M-E test schedule is going to be for the rest of this year, but at least he has already demontrated a 10uN thruster back in January that could be the M-E in action or it could be something else equally interesting, but he won't be able to tell IMO until he can figure out the frequency scaling of the thrust effect he is measuring with his current shuttler test article.  Whether Dr. Woodward will be able to accomplish that feat this year is TBD.

Best,
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: tdperk on 03/31/2012 12:26 pm
"Let's hope that at least one of them is near the mark..."

And clearly enough so it is easily accepted.

Ignaz Semmelweiss.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 04/01/2012 03:01 pm
Harry White's and Paul March's PDF at NETS2012 about "Advanced Propulsion Physics: Harnessing the Quantum Vacuum"

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3082.pdf

Quote
Historical test results
have yielded thrust levels of between 1000-4000 micro-
Newtons, specific force performance of 0.1N/kW,
and an equivalent specific impulse of ~1x1012 seconds.

Where does that Isp come from?

cheers, Martin

See attached slide.

Thanks, but I'm not seeing that derivation unless your power source is pure matter/anti-matter with 100% conversion efficiency to usable power. ISTR you mentioning a spacecraft a while ago powered by an H2/O2 power-cell. By retaining the reactants, only the mass of the power output (by E=MC2) goes overboard.

If I've remembered that correctly, that seems to be completely the wrong way to analyse the situation. Instead, you are producing power by reacting H2 & O2. To calculate Isp correctly, the reaction product (water) should be sent overboard, and the thrust equated to the rate of consumption / disposal of hydrolox.

cheers, Martin

Martin:

   Try to remember that we are NOT talking about rockets in this example, which you are trying to do, though I tried to use a standard rocket parameter to bridge the gap between the two propulsion concepts and to demonstrate the performance enhancements that such a field propulsion device could bring to bear on the tyranny of the rocket equation.   Instead we are talking about gravity/inertial (G/I) field propulsion systems that use the ambient G/I field to generate the Mach-Effect (M-E) momentum transfers from the vehicle to the field and thus to the rest of the universe that created this field in the first place.  So the G/I field propulsion process does not require the expulsion of mass or E&M radiation away from the vehicle to generate the noted reactive forces, for it directly reacts with the G/I field instead just like a ship uses its propeller to interact with the ocean's water to generate thrust.

Paul,

completely clear on the "propellantless" element of the topic title, but you're really missing the point here.

Isp relates the consumption of consumables against the amount of impulse generated. If you are producing electricity via H2/O2 in a fuel cell, a kilogram of consumables will be converted to a certain amount of impulse through the thruster. That is clearly the basis on which Isp is calculated, and works irrespective of whether you throw the reactants overboard.



Again, I ask the simple question - given "specific force performance of 0.1N/kW", how much impulse could you generate from consuming 1kg of H2/O2?

I presume you'd need to start from the energy density of H2/O2, apply efficiency of the fuel cell and note losses in your electrical sub-system to calculate net energy at the thruster from 1kg of fuel. If you multiply this by "specific force performance of 0.1N/kW" shouldn't it give Isp in m/s? (Or divide by g to give it in seconds.)

For instance, if H2 has an energy density of 123 MJ/kg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Common_energy_densities), then H2/O2 at stochiometric ratio has energy density of 13.66 MJ/kg.

Assuming 33% combined efficiency in fuel cell output and conditioning power for the MLT (a WAG!), the thruster will see 4.55 MJ/kg of fuel consumed.

4550 KJ/kg * 0.1 N/(kJ/s) = 455 N.s/kg (by mass) = 455 m/s. Divide by g to get a specific impulse of 46.5s (by weight), about 1/10th that of an RL-10.

Obviously, if you have better figures for H2 energy density (apologies for using Wiki figures), or efficiency of the fuel cell and electrical sub-system that would affect the final result.



Of course, you're not limited by chemical energy densities - power it from a solar cell and you can keep going for ever. However, with SEP having such high Isp it will compete quite well for Dawn-like solar powered missions.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 04/16/2012 07:25 am
"Alternative derivation of the Feigel effect and call for its experimental verification" - O. A. Croze

http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3656

Maybe sometime in the next decade someone will test it :)

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 07/05/2012 12:18 pm
funny that this thread has died here, since there were plenty of news posted at Talk Polywell forum and NextBigFuture blog.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 08/10/2012 02:20 pm
Any recent news?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 08/10/2012 02:34 pm
there are several recent news and discussions at Talk Polywell...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 08/10/2012 05:30 pm
there are several recent news and discussions at Talk Polywell...
I haven't been here since several months and I lost the records. Can you update me pls.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 08/17/2012 09:52 pm

completely clear on the "propellantless" element of the topic title, but you're really missing the point here.

Isp relates the consumption of consumables against the amount of impulse generated. If you are producing electricity via H2/O2 in a fuel cell, a kilogram of consumables will be converted to a certain amount of impulse through the thruster. That is clearly the basis on which Isp is calculated, and works irrespective of whether you throw the reactants overboard.

But dude, as the ESA's SMART-1 probe to the Moon showed, you don't even need all your consumables to even be onboard in the first place. Well, sure the propellant for that mission was onboard the spacecraft, but the energy used to accelerate and eject it wasn't - it was coming from the Sun.
So you don't necessarily need your energy to come from an onboard fuel cell, because it could come from solar power even.

Your argument seems to be that action-reaction by propellant expulsion is always going to be more efficient than action-reaction by other means such as Mach-Woodward (ie. so why bother with Mach-Woodward at all?)

Well, you may not always be able to gather propellant mass along the journey if you run out, but you'll probably still be able to gather light energy.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 08/17/2012 10:29 pm
Your argument seems to be that action-reaction by propellant expulsion is always going to be more efficient than action-reaction by other means such as Mach-Woodward (ie. so why bother with Mach-Woodward at all?)

Well, you may not always be able to gather propellant mass along the journey if you run out, but you'll probably still be able to gather light energy.

Don't worry about it; it's not true.  At least theoretically.  His conclusion is only valid for the low-performance thrusters demonstrated to date.

WarpStar 1, IIRC, was designed assuming 1 N/W thrusters were available.  Last I heard, there was no theoretical reason why this would not be possible, though the new force prediction derivation may have something to say on the feasibility front...  anyway, let's assume that number for now.

1 N/W, in the context of a conventional rocket, means that mdot*v_exh = 0.5*mdot*v_exh^2 (assuming 100% efficiency).  In other words, v_exh = 2 m/s, for a specific impulse of 0.204 seconds.

With a Mach-effect thruster capable of 1 N/W, hydrogen/oxygen consumption to produce one newton of thrust with fuel cells at 60% efficiency relative to the HHV would be ~1e-7 kg/s, leading to an effective v_exh based on thrust/mass flow of ~9.5 million m/s, or a specific impulse of about 970,000 seconds.  Even using MP99's much more pessimistic power system assumptions, you're still looking at about 464,000 seconds.  Assuming you dump the resulting water overboard, which I would not necessarily recommend...

In other words, the operating principle of a Mach-effect thruster decouples the specific impulse from the thrust-to-power ratio.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 08/18/2012 12:27 am
I don't even know what this grandly named WarpStar1 is, so I guess I'll have to look it up in the pantheon of mythological superships.

But electric charge is only one example of increased energy density. In principle, you could claim the same Mach-Woodward effect by high-cyclical manipulation of magnetic spin, strong force, etc.

What would it take to utilize these other forces for Mach-Woodward experiments?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 08/18/2012 10:06 am

completely clear on the "propellantless" element of the topic title, but you're really missing the point here.

Isp relates the consumption of consumables against the amount of impulse generated. If you are producing electricity via H2/O2 in a fuel cell, a kilogram of consumables will be converted to a certain amount of impulse through the thruster. That is clearly the basis on which Isp is calculated, and works irrespective of whether you throw the reactants overboard.

But dude, as the ESA's SMART-1 probe to the Moon showed, you don't even need all your consumables to even be onboard in the first place. Well, sure the propellant for that mission was onboard the spacecraft, but the energy used to accelerate and eject it wasn't - it was coming from the Sun.
So you don't necessarily need your energy to come from an onboard fuel cell, because it could come from solar power even.

Your argument seems to be that action-reaction by propellant expulsion is always going to be more efficient than action-reaction by other means such as Mach-Woodward (ie. so why bother with Mach-Woodward at all?)

Well, you may not always be able to gather propellant mass along the journey if you run out, but you'll probably still be able to gather light energy.

You do seem to have missed the final paragraph of that post:-

Of course, you're not limited by chemical energy densities - power it from a solar cell and you can keep going for ever. However, with SEP having such high Isp it will compete quite well for Dawn-like solar powered missions.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 08/18/2012 02:53 pm
Your argument seems to be that action-reaction by propellant expulsion is always going to be more efficient than action-reaction by other means such as Mach-Woodward (ie. so why bother with Mach-Woodward at all?)

Well, you may not always be able to gather propellant mass along the journey if you run out, but you'll probably still be able to gather light energy.

Don't worry about it; it's not true.  At least theoretically.  His conclusion is only valid for the low-performance thrusters demonstrated to date.

WarpStar 1, IIRC, was designed assuming 1 N/W thrusters were available.  Last I heard, there was no theoretical reason why this would not be possible, though the new force prediction derivation may have something to say on the feasibility front...  anyway, let's assume that number for now.

1 N/W, in the context of a conventional rocket, means that mdot*v_exh = 0.5*mdot*v_exh^2 (assuming 100% efficiency).  In other words, v_exh = 2 m/s, for a specific impulse of 0.204 seconds.

With a Mach-effect thruster capable of 1 N/W, hydrogen/oxygen consumption to produce one newton of thrust with fuel cells at 60% efficiency relative to the HHV would be ~1e-7 kg/s, leading to an effective v_exh based on thrust/mass flow of ~9.5 million m/s, or a specific impulse of about 970,000 seconds.  Even using MP99's much more pessimistic power system assumptions, you're still looking at about 464,000 seconds.  Assuming you dump the resulting water overboard, which I would not necessarily recommend...

In other words, the operating principle of a Mach-effect thruster decouples the specific impulse from the thrust-to-power ratio.

Agree that if you can improve the efficiency of conversion of power to thrust by a factor of 10,000, then the Isp will also improve by the same factor. The reference given was for 0.0001 W/N.

Quite frankly, the difference between 33% & 60% conversion of chemical energy to MHz or GHz driving current for the MLT (fuel cell efficiency, DC-to-AC conversion, presumed cooling for the power electronics and thrusters, etc, etc) is just lost in the noise - only increases Isp to 84.5s with a 0.0001 N/W thruster - still gives ballpark-a-million-seconds with 1 N/W.

I don't think a Dawn-type mission would gain any value from retaining the reactants after they've produced power, but agree that you'd probably retain it in a vessel carrying Humans or a robotic vessel where water is one of the delivered cargos.

BTW, I also mis-spoke when I said that the resulting water needed to be dumped overboard to calculate Isp (though it is if you want to apply the rocket equation). Was trying to say (very poorly) that the mass that has to be counted is the rate at which propellant or reactants is consumed, not the E=mc2 equivalent mass of just the energy released.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 08/18/2012 08:42 pm
Technically, if you retain the reaction products you can still use the rocket equation - your Isp becomes the number Star-Drive uses.  And your mass ratio becomes ~1...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 09/02/2012 11:53 am
GeeGee just posted on talk-polywell.org that Prof. Woodward book "Making Starships and Stargates: The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes" can now be preordered at amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships-Stargates-Interstellar-Exploration/dp/1461456223/ref=pd_rhf_gw_p_t_1

I have already preordered the book :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/15/2012 11:45 pm
GeeGee just posted on talk-polywell.org that Prof. Woodward book "Making Starships and Stargates: The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes" can now be preordered at amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships-Stargates-Interstellar-Exploration/dp/1461456223/ref=pd_rhf_gw_p_t_1

I have already preordered the book :)

Folks:

I haven't posted over here at NSF lately becuase there wasn't much to report on, but I think you might find the attached slides from Jim Woodward's latest PZT stack experiments of interest.  Dr. Woodward is now actually getting some respectable thrust levels that are now over 30 dB (~130 uN) above the ~0.1 micro-Newton (uN) noise floor of his ARC-Lite torque pendulum located at his CSUF laboratory.  A few slides reflecting the N5 Test article and thrust traces are attached.  The next things to do is to make this just-so cycle-15 data run example the norm instead of the exception.  That will happen when Woodward's team can find one or more ways to phase and frequency lock his N5 PZT-Stack's mechancial and electrical resonant frequencies.

Best,
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 09/16/2012 11:07 pm
So with 130 uN of thrust, how long would it take to get a small nanosat or cubesat to the Moon from LEO?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: simonbp on 09/17/2012 06:22 am
Well, a cubesat has a max mass of 1.3 kg, and so the acceleration (assuming all the Q thrust bits fit in the 1.3 kg) would be 0.1 mm/s2 or 0.00864 km/s per day. Accounting for gravity and drag losses and etc, it's about 4 km/s to get to the Moon on a low-thrust trajectory, which means roughly 1.25 years. Enough for a powerful demonstration, but not immediately practical.

And, that's assuming you can cram enough solar cells in the cubesat package.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/17/2012 05:51 pm
Well, a cubesat has a max mass of 1.3 kg, and so the acceleration (assuming all the Q thrust bits fit in the 1.3 kg) would be 0.1 mm/s2 or 0.00864 km/s per day. Accounting for gravity and drag losses and etc, it's about 4 km/s to get to the Moon on a low-thrust trajectory, which means roughly 1.25 years. Enough for a powerful demonstration, but not immediately practical.

And, that's assuming you can cram enough solar cells in the cubesat package.

Which implies that if the thrust can be doubled the trip will take about 8 months.  A bit long for a masters degree but as the experimental part of a PHD it may be viable.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 09/17/2012 09:20 pm
1.25 years is still a measurable goal. Heck, this thread is a few times older than that.

If the basic science works, then this becomes an engineering optimization problem. Just Kickstarter it and hire some better engineers to improve the thrust while reducing the weight to fit it into a Cubesat package. If you can get it to travel from LEO to the Moon, then I'm sure you've got a hit on your hands, and can get whatever funding is required from the powers-that-be. If it works, it would certainly be a useful way for satellites to do stationkeeping.

Hey, people are talking about picosats these days, never mind just nanosats or cubesats. So does the efficiency of this mechanism improve as the package size scales up, or as package size scales down?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: simonbp on 09/18/2012 04:33 am
Hey, people are talking about picosats these days, never mind just nanosats or cubesats. So does the efficiency of this mechanism improve as the package size scales up, or as package size scales down?

Up, probably. There is a certain amount of overhead from power systems, electronics, and whatnot that mean really small sats aren't all that efficient. The only real motivation for them is cost, which is still quite useful for small experiments.

At any rate, it sounds like the JSC group is focusing on attitude-control systems, which is much more immediately practical. If they could get even a basic Q-Thruster ACS working, it would be commercial useful enough to self-support future development.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 09/19/2012 03:02 am
Are we still discussing propellentless propulsion? Prove the effect exists and you will get a thousand times more funding, it will break open a whole new area of physics with unforeseeable consequences. It doesnt matter if you move a centimeter or to the moon, you just have to make it clear you haven't just accidentally reinvented the ion drive.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: simonbp on 09/19/2012 03:25 am
Are we still discussing propellentless propulsion? Prove the effect exists and you will get a thousand times more funding, it will break open a whole new area of physics with unforeseeable consequences. It doesnt matter if you move a centimeter or to the moon, you just have to make it clear you haven't just accidentally reinvented the ion drive.

Which is precisely why Woodward & White's work is so interesting: they are attempting to experimentally test their crazy theory with a well-documented, reproducible experiment.

IIRC, the thought for a flight test is to prove that the (very small) effect they claim to observe on the ground is really propulsion, and not simply due to the experimental setup.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: john smith 19 on 09/19/2012 09:47 am

At any rate, it sounds like the JSC group is focusing on attitude-control systems, which is much more immediately practical. If they could get even a basic Q-Thruster ACS working, it would be commercial useful enough to self-support future development.
At least one of their papers talks about the North South Station Keeping problem for commsats at GEO. Ion thrusters are already COTS options for this task so they have a target (about 1N/Kw of input power seems to be a goal) to aim for.

Note this would *eliminate* 1 whole life limiting mode (running out of station keeping propellant) and offer the *possibility* of return to LEO for upgrade or recycling. You'd still want something big to avoid multiple transits through the Van Allan belts though.

There is a fair bit of literature on designing for on orbit repair and upgrading but IIRC only Hubble has really put it into effect. I suspect it's more a question of deciding if you *want* to do it (and routes to getting the parts up there exist).
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 09/19/2012 12:37 pm
Which is precisely why Woodward & White's work is so interesting: they are attempting to experimentally test their crazy theory with a well-documented, reproducible experiment.

IIRC, the thought for a flight test is to prove that the (very small) effect they claim to observe on the ground is really propulsion, and not simply due to the experimental setup.

Absolutely and good luck to them. My eyebrow waggling is directed at anyone asking what point is it if the effect is tiny, or are trying to work up a business case. For example, how would the confirmation of propellentless propulsion compare to the confirmation of the Higgs Boson, a $13 billion dollar project. I would have thought this was many times more profound a revolution in physics. Its a rule the majority probably never expected to be broken. If necessary to understand the principle, we would have projects of at least that ($13b) scale popping up around the world to understand what it really means. (this only wouldnt happen if the principle became well understood with less effort)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: simonbp on 09/20/2012 03:43 pm
It's about risk rather than reward. The European and US governments were willing to shell out so much for LHC because it was always going to see _something_, even if it took them a while to figure out what it was. Same thing for large telescopes, or Mars landers, etc.

On the other hand, there is a huge risk with this stuff that it doesn't work and would just blow up in the face of any agency that attached their name to it. So, despite the reward, it's very difficult for anyone (government or private) to want to attach their name to a program that's so ripe for ridicule.

If, however, they can get to a high enough SNR that it's really believable (which may take an in-space test), funding sources and competitors (public and private) will start coming out of the woodwork.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 09/20/2012 11:33 pm
But if it doesn't require significant investment to do this kind of low-level research, then why worry about it biting you back? I can see people worried about getting in hot water for spending vast sums on something that fizzles out, but not on spending weak sums. It doesn't sound like testing this theory automatically entails some kind of massive expenditure.

As I recall, after some guy claimed to have used Hafnium isotope from an X-ray machine to create a quantum nucleonic battery, it was Los Alamos National Labs which spent money on an experiment to debunk the claim, calling it an opportunity to validate existing known laws of physics. People spend money all the time on testing and revalidating laws of physics. So even money spent on a disproof of Mach-Woodward could be seen as useful science. Just like Mythbusters.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/21/2012 12:44 pm
But if it doesn't require significant investment to do this kind of low-level research, then why worry about it biting you back? I can see people worried about getting in hot water for spending vast sums on something that fizzles out, but not on spending weak sums. It doesn't sound like testing this theory automatically entails some kind of massive expenditure.

As I recall, after some guy claimed to have used Hafnium isotope from an X-ray machine to create a quantum nucleonic battery, it was Los Alamos National Labs which spent money on an experiment to debunk the claim, calling it an opportunity to validate existing known laws of physics. People spend money all the time on testing and revalidating laws of physics. So even money spent on a disproof of Mach-Woodward could be seen as useful science. Just like Mythbusters.

In regards to R&D funding, Dr. Woodward and CSUF probably spend less than $25k per year supporting Woodward's Mach-Effect research with these costs primarily centered in the rental value of Woodward's CSUF lab space that could be used for other purposes, the insurance for same and the utilities required to keep it alive.  Woodward pays for most of his direct operating expenses out of his own pocket or a college R&D foundation he can submit requests to.

I'm not sure how much NASA is spending on Dr. White's work, I’m just a contractor after all, but I think it just comes from internal JSC R&D funds that all civil servants at the center can submit competitive R&D proposals to that are then down-selected through a peer and JSC management review process on a yearly basis.  In other words we are only talking about a few hundred $K per year per project, at most, for any one of these internally supported R&D projects that goes to pays for the experiment's required materials and contractor labor if needed.

Best,
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 09/21/2012 01:18 pm
Hey Paul,

Any chance of some kind of "open sourced research" for this Mach-Woodward stuff, a la polywell? Can't some kind of basic spec for a basic apparatus be published, for others to try to reproduce it? You never know when someone in a wider community might come up with a variation or tweak that significantly improves the results.

Any plans to ever test this thing in space - ie. on a cubesat or something?
Wouldn't it be best to start planning to move to that kind of form factor, in case the opportunity arises? I've heard of various student-built satellites occasionally being launched. Why not yours as well?

Even with 130uN - and I realize it's a more recent result - that's enough to make a cubesat in LEO go somewhere else in a reasonable amount of time. All you'd have to do is make it go somewhere, as well as prove that it's not an ion/photon rocket expelling some kind of exhaust.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/21/2012 02:34 pm
Of course, you're not limited by chemical energy densities - power it from a solar cell and you can keep going for ever. However, with SEP having such high Isp it will compete quite well for Dawn-like solar powered missions.

I'm correct in pointing out, I hope, that solar power only works while pretty close to an individual star, and will not work at any appreciable rate in interstellar space.  Which I guess would not be a "Dawn" mission.

Well, you may not always be able to gather propellant mass along the journey if you run out, but you'll probably still be able to gather light energy.

Just sayin', since the propellantless drive is seen as an enabler of interstellar missions.  So where does the driving energy come from again?

I don't even know what this grandly named WarpStar1 is...

Neither do I, but also note the assumption about the availability of 1 N/W thrusters.  As MP99 pointed out, "The reference given was for 0.0001 W/N".

It doesn't sound like testing this theory automatically entails some kind of massive expenditure.

This theory does sound like a shoe-in for a NIAC award, but this researcher intentionally avoids that kind of funding.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 09/23/2012 07:18 am
Moving beyond cheap and convenient, what are the ideal components to most efficiently do this charge-and-oscillate that is the basis of the Mach-Woodward effect?

Wouldn't a nanotube be the highest-frequency mechanical oscillator currently possible? The fact that it can also be a conductor/semiconductor should also help. I'm thinking that some kind of intercalated buckyonion could act as a double-layer capacitor, and be attached to either end of your nanotube oscillator.

It's probably already been covered in this thread, but obviously you want the oscillation frequency to be as high as possible, and you want your charge mass to have as high as mass fraction of total mass as possible.

So can anybody else think of any better components for this purpose?

I don't know if this has been posted before, but here's something I found on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn8hqX9JBOE
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 09/23/2012 06:13 pm
Furthermore, electric charge is the form of energy potential being modulated here purely because it is convenient to manipulate. What other forms of energy potential could be modulated that would have higher energy density, thus offering a higher "mass fraction" of the total system mass? What about some kind of chemical potential? Some kind of nuclear potential? Perhaps NMR?

Which form of modulatable energy potential offers the most "Isp"?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: simonbp on 11/08/2012 08:47 pm
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_05_2012_p84-495380.xml

AvLeak, so take with a large grain of halite...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 11/08/2012 10:29 pm
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_05_2012_p84-495380.xml

AvLeak, so take with a large grain of halite...

http://wulixb.iphy.ac.cn/EN/abstract/abstract47295.shtml
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: e of pi on 11/09/2012 01:07 am
http://wulixb.iphy.ac.cn/EN/abstract/abstract47295.shtml
I read that abstract, and I can't make heads or tails of if it's physically possible. If so, the power numbers look...interesting.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/09/2012 02:39 am
Is it not EM drive with a cylindrical chamber, not a conical one?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/09/2012 12:41 pm
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_05_2012_p84-495380.xml

AvLeak, so take with a large grain of halite...

From the article:
"Yang's team used a magnetron as a 2.45 GHz microwave source and produced a measured thrust of up to 720 mN from 2.5 kw of input power. On the surface, this appears to be a peer-reviewed validation of the science."

“The EmDrive will give much higher performance, at lower cost, for many types of mission,” says Shawyer. “In an increasingly competitive, international industry, space companies will have to use EmDrive technology or go out of business.”

This also of course promises free energy. Increase velocity with this device proportionally to input energy, extract energy using standard physics proportional to velocity squared. That solves our energy problems. Oh, and I guess we don't need to worry about the heat death of the universe anymore. But sure, you could focus on the companies dealing in the thousandth of a percent of the US federal budget related to high ISP low thrust devices. ::)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 11/09/2012 11:30 pm
This also of course promises free energy. Increase velocity with this device proportionally to input energy, extract energy using standard physics proportional to velocity squared. That solves our energy problems.

Yep. Using those numbers, a 1 kg vehicle will have greater kinetic energy than the energy inputted after just 2.5 hours of acceleration.

Any propellantless propulsion that gives you a constant X thrust for Y input can be used to make infinite energy.

 8)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/10/2012 01:33 am
So.... How big a grain of halite should be used?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/10/2012 07:12 am
Is it not EM drive with a cylindrical chamber, not a conical one?
"Tapered" cylindrical sounds like a synonym for conical to me.
Keep in mind this is not a free lunch drive. If you believe e=mc^2 and run with it the idea you end with something that can turn energy into thrust. The questions are a) Is this it an b) does this efficiency look reasonable.

Of course until this actually turns up as a peer reviewed article in Science, Nature or one of the other heavyweight journals (IE in English, because, after all, how can you trust anything from a culture that's only had writing for a couple of thousand years :)  ) this will not be taken seriously.

Or perhaps when the Chinese starting fitting them to a habitat and send it to Mars. That would be quite a wake up call.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/10/2012 08:27 am
Keep in mind this is not a free lunch drive. If you believe e=mc^2 and run with it the idea you end with something that can turn energy into thrust. The questions are a) Is this it an b) does this efficiency look reasonable.

It really does promise free unlimited energy. Read my last post. I can expand on the math if you like but there is not much to it.

Just because it is a free lunch doesnt mean it is impossible. Perfectly sane physicists discuss entire universes appearing from quantum fluctuations. Perhaps something like this is exactly what we need to explain the fermi paradox also. Aliens never go anywhere, they just spew out their own matter, pushing the rest of the universe away in the process. It is possible, but way more significant than proponents seem to grasp.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/10/2012 08:43 am
It really does promise free unlimited energy. Read my last post. I can expand on the math if you like but there is not much to it.

Please do. Otherwise it comes across as a bald assertion.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/10/2012 09:17 am
It really does promise free unlimited energy. Read my last post. I can expand on the math if you like but there is not much to it.

Please do. Otherwise it comes across as a bald assertion.

Ok, it wasn't meant to come across as an assertion but there really isnt much to the math. Numbers are just going to bulk it up.

Ok, from the article:
"720 mN from 2.5 kw of input power".
Now we are agreed that what this means is that for a constant input of power, we get a constant force right?

for argument's sake, lets assume we are using this to accelerate a 1kg mass. lets assume we accelerate the mass for five hours (18000 seconds).

How much energy have we expended in our drive?
expended energy
  = power * time
  = 2.5kw * 18000s
  = 45,000,000 joules

How much velocity have we gained? (note: force=mass*acceleration)
Velocity gained
  = acceleration * time
  = force/mass * time
  = 0.720n/1kg * 18000s
  = 12960 meters per second (almost 13km per second)

But now we have this very fast moving object we could of course generate electricity from it, say by decelerating it along a magnetic rail or something. It does not matter how. What matters is how much energy we could extract.

Kinetic energy is given by the well known formula:
Ek = 0.5mv^2
  = 0.5*1*(12960)^2
  = 83,980,800 joules.

This is about twice the energy you put in using the propellentless propulsion.

Really these numbers do not matter though. The key principle is that the drive lets you increase your velocity linearly with energy, but totally standard physics lets us extract energy out proportional to the square of the velocity.
It does not matter if their drive is only a millionth of this effectiveness.. at some point the linear power required will be less than the quadratic curve of the kinetic energy gained.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/10/2012 10:37 am
By the way, two things we have today are not that far off propellentless propulsion: the propeller and the sail. Perhaps we could come up with a drive that pushes against solar wind or the interstellar medium. It could be interesting to get your head around the math of why these do not break any laws but could still be vastly more efficient than a rocket.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 11/10/2012 10:49 am
.......
This is about twice the energy you put in using the propellentless propulsion.

Really these numbers do not matter though. The key principle is that the drive lets you increase your velocity linearly with energy, but totally standard physics lets us extract energy out proportional to the square of the velocity.
It does not matter if their drive is only a millionth of this effectiveness.. at some point the linear power required will be less than the quadratic curve of the kinetic energy gained.

you know that this is not possible with a EM-Drive. If you have read the papers you would know that the performance falls off rather fast with an increase in velocity. An EM-Drive works only good perpendicular to the velocity vector.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: jded on 11/10/2012 11:35 am
.......
This is about twice the energy you put in using the propellentless propulsion.

Really these numbers do not matter though. The key principle is that the drive lets you increase your velocity linearly with energy, but totally standard physics lets us extract energy out proportional to the square of the velocity.
It does not matter if their drive is only a millionth of this effectiveness.. at some point the linear power required will be less than the quadratic curve of the kinetic energy gained.

you know that this is not possible with a EM-Drive. If you have read the papers you would know that the performance falls off rather fast with an increase in velocity. An EM-Drive works only good perpendicular to the velocity vector.

Performance falls with velocity relative to what? There is no such thing in physics as absolute velocity.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/10/2012 02:39 pm
Is it not EM drive with a cylindrical chamber, not a conical one?
"Tapered" cylindrical sounds like a synonym for conical to me.

Scanned too fast; totally overlooked that.  The picture in the AvWeek article is of one of Shawyer's articles, if I'm not mistaken.  Note that the scientist would not take questions from AvWeek.

Ok, it wasn't meant to come across as an assertion but there really isnt much to the math. Numbers are just going to bulk it up.


Thanks for that easily readable explanation. 

Quote
Now we are agreed that what this means is that for a constant input of power, we get a constant force right?

Uh, yeah.  Pragmatically, I ask this question a lot:  Where does the power come from?  As I understand it, for this device to be useful, the 2.5 kW power supply has to fit in 1 kg total probe mass, correct?

.......
This is about twice the energy you put in using the propellentless propulsion.

... The key principle is that the drive lets you increase your velocity linearly with energy, but totally standard physics lets us extract energy out proportional to the square of the velocity.

It does not matter if their drive is only a millionth of this effectiveness... at some point the linear power required will be less than the quadratic curve of the kinetic energy gained.

you know that this is not possible with a EM-Drive. ... performance falls off rather fast with an increase in velocity. An EM-Drive works only good perpendicular to the velocity vector.

Performance falls with velocity relative to what? There is no such thing in physics as absolute velocity.

With velocity relative to the article being accelerated, presumably.  No need for a concept of absolute velocity AIUI.

But:

If you were out in the middle of space, no matter what you weighed, were you to apply
0.720 newtons of force, you would accelerate in the opposite direction.  If you wanted just to coast at a constant speed, you'd turn off your device.  After a given time, if you wanted to decelerate, you'd have to apply 0.720 newtons in the opposite direction.  All that energy expelled in starting and stopping is lost to entropy.  The benefit that you would have gained would be that you got from Point A to Point B, over a period of time X.

You can't get more energy out of the deceleration than you applied during the acceleration.

If you believe e=mc^2 and run with it the idea you end with something that can turn energy into thrust. The questions are a) Is this it ?

I do, and yeah, that is the question.  I believe that it should be theoretically possible to convert energy to momentum.  Of course, I have no idea how this would be done.  Paul March and Woodward, et al., believe that they can induce matter to vibrate in a preferential direction by correct application of electrical energy, but their efficiency at doing this is so low as to be virtually imperceptible from the matter's natural random vibration.

From the AvWeek article:

Quote
Shawyer's EmDrive does not have any exhaust. It consists of a tuned cavity shaped like a truncated cone into which resonating microwaves are channeled. Like other radiation, these exert a tiny pressure when reflected off a surface. According to Shawyer, the pressure exerted on the large end of the cavity is greater than the pressure on the small end, producing a net thrust.

This appears to be a violation the law of conservation of momentum. However, Shawyer says net thrust occurs because the microwaves have a group velocity (the velocity of a collection of electromagnetic waves) greater in one direction than the other and relativistic effects to modify the Newtonian mechanics.

Shawyer maintains that there is a causal relationship between the group velocity of a wave thru matter, and the actual momentum of the matter, and that he can manipulate it so that there is a preferential direction of momentum.  It appears to violate the conservation of momentum, according to people who have a better understanding of the principles than I do. 

The current thought is that there is no causal relationship between the group velocity of a wave thru matter, and the momentum of the matter thru which the wave travels, thus no work can be done by this process.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 11/10/2012 03:54 pm
Performance falls with velocity relative to what? There is no such thing in physics as absolute velocity.

It does not matter what I believe but what is written in the papers about the EM-drive. See for example:  http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf  [page 9]

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: ChileVerde on 11/10/2012 05:04 pm

Or perhaps when the Chinese starting fitting them to a habitat and send it to Mars. That would be quite a wake up call.

Boy, will they get a surprise.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 11/10/2012 09:52 pm
Performance falls with velocity relative to what? There is no such thing in physics as absolute velocity.

It does not matter what I believe but what is written in the papers about the EM-drive. See for example:  http://www.emdrive.com/theorypaper9-4.pdf  [page 9]

You do understand that these papers are nothing but gobbledegook, right? What's interesting here is that these Chinese researchers came up with their own theory for how it works, and that new theory is what allowed them to produce a drive that actually works (or so they say).

Now, if it turns out that all this drive does, if it works at all, is give you a terribly inefficient way to turn electrical energy into kinetic energy, leaving conservation of energy in-tact, then that's just not all that interesting from a practical standpoint.

Why? Well, you still need a lot of stored energy on-board your vehicle, or you need to receive beamed energy of some sort (such as solar power), which can be converted to electricity to be used. We already have engines that work in that mode, electric thrusters, and they're much more efficient than the numbers that are coming out of this research (if they're real).

Perhaps sometime in the future, if this technology ever becomes verified as real, the efficiency will go up. Until then, it's just a trade for the side-benefits (no propellant tank, no exhaust impingement concerns) against the worse efficiency.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/11/2012 12:11 am
.......
This is about twice the energy you put in using the propellentless propulsion.

Really these numbers do not matter though. The key principle is that the drive lets you increase your velocity linearly with energy, but totally standard physics lets us extract energy out proportional to the square of the velocity.
It does not matter if their drive is only a millionth of this effectiveness.. at some point the linear power required will be less than the quadratic curve of the kinetic energy gained.

you know that this is not possible with a EM-Drive. If you have read the papers you would know that the performance falls off rather fast with an increase in velocity. An EM-Drive works only good perpendicular to the velocity vector.

I don't know that, which isnt to say it isn't true. My entire argument rests on the assertion that for a constant power you can exert a constant force on your craft. If you understand that paper and it says something different, educate us!

The thing is, if the performance is dependent on anything other than the craft's current frame of reference, e.g. its performance is less when it is moving faster, then it is really important to define what you are moving faster with respect to.. otherwise you could turn on this device and it will suddenly drag you off towards Sagittarius at a hundred thousand km/s with no way back, because it turns out our galaxy is already going a fair clip within this arbitrary frame.

If on the other hand you are pushing against some sum of the entire universe that always appears stationary within your current frame, just as light always appears to be relative to your current frame, you end up with the same energy from nothing (or from the sum of the entire universe). I really don't see any particular reason to reject energy from nothing but accept propellentless propulsion. Why shouldnt we get both at once. In for a penny, in for a pound as they say ;)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 11/11/2012 07:37 am
If you were out in the middle of space, no matter what you weighed, were you to apply
0.720 newtons of force, you would accelerate in the opposite direction.  If you wanted just to coast at a constant speed, you'd turn off your device.  After a given time, if you wanted to decelerate, you'd have to apply 0.720 newtons in the opposite direction.  All that energy expelled in starting and stopping is lost to entropy.  The benefit that you would have gained would be that you got from Point A to Point B, over a period of time X.

You can't get more energy out of the deceleration than you applied during the acceleration.

Sure you can.  All you need to do is fly through an electromagnetic decelerator instead of using the thruster.  Then, as you come to a stop at the far end of the decelerator, you plug in and recharge your batteries.  If you were doing at least 6945/η m/s or so (where η is the efficiency of the decelerator/charger/battery system), you will be fully charged before the decelerator's caps run dry.

There are better ways; they involve rotation, which is a great way to move fast without going anywhere.  Even so, at the reported level of efficiency you do have to go pretty fast...

Quote
I believe that it should be theoretically possible to convert energy to momentum.

It's not.  They are two different things.

Now, if it turns out that all this drive does, if it works at all, is give you a terribly inefficient way to turn electrical energy into kinetic energy, leaving conservation of energy in-tact, then that's just not all that interesting from a practical standpoint.

Why? Well, you still need a lot of stored energy on-board your vehicle, or you need to receive beamed energy of some sort (such as solar power), which can be converted to electricity to be used.

You can't turn electrical energy into kinetic energy without throwing something away.  You have to have something to do work on, so it can do work on you in return; you can't do work on yourself.  This is blindingly obvious to anyone who understood high school physics.

A rocket produces constant thrust at constant power, regardless of how fast it's moving; the energy books balance because of the kinetic energy of the propellant, and the fact that you eventually run out of it.  The work is done on the propellant; from the perspective of the rocket, only the propellant ends up with any kinetic energy.

Cars have a thrust-to-power ratio that depends on velocity, because they do work on something in an external reference frame (ie: the road).

This device doesn't sound like its operating principle should depend on reference frame.  It might, if it's actually interacting with a local object like the Earth or the sun, or a lab magnet someone forgot was on the same circuit, or if it interacts with distant matter that's freakishly symmetric, or something like that...  Anyway, any device with a frame-independent thrust-to-power ratio, that doesn't throw anything out the back, can be induced to behave like a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.

That doesn't mean it is.  Mach effect seems to be, at worst, a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, since it does have something to push on and is thus capable of 'farming' energy from the rest of the universe when configured appropriately (thrusters on flywheel hooked to generator, for instance).  I'm not sure about this one...  I downloaded the paper, but it's in Chinese so I can't read it...

Quote
We already have engines that work in that mode, electric thrusters, and they're much more efficient than the numbers that are coming out of this research (if they're real).

Uh, no.  The thrust-to-power ratio in this case is 3472 W/N, which is equivalent to 708 seconds of Isp at 100% jet power efficiency, or 425 seconds at 60%.  Vastly more impulse per unit energy than an ion drive, and the disadvantage of such high specific thrust (namely high propellant consumption) is eliminated.  Solar electric and nuclear electric would both become far easier and more effective with a device like this.

If this is real (which I'm not taking a position on) it needs to be replicated ASAP, because it is huge.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 11/11/2012 11:56 am
You can't turn electrical energy into kinetic energy without throwing something away.  You have to have something to do work on, so it can do work on you in return; you can't do work on yourself.  This is blindingly obvious to anyone who understood high school physics.

...

If this is real (which I'm not taking a position on) it needs to be replicated ASAP, because it is huge.

Congratulations catching up with the conversation. Perhaps you could try to not be insulting to those of us who are already here, next time?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: mboeller on 11/11/2012 01:20 pm

You do understand that these papers are nothing but gobbledegook, right?

Sure

Quote
What's interesting here is that these Chinese researchers came up with their own theory for how it works, and that new theory is what allowed them to produce a drive that actually works (or so they say).

Sorry but I cannot read Chinese so I cannot comment here.

Quote
Now, if it turns out that all this drive does, if it works at all, is give you a terribly inefficient way to turn electrical energy into kinetic energy, leaving conservation of energy in-tact, then that's just not all that interesting from a practical standpoint.

I don't think so. A ion drive with 2.5KW and 3000sec would, if my math is correct, at 75% efficiency only generate ~125mN instead of the reported 720mN (according to the aviation week article)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/11/2012 01:46 pm
If you were out in the middle of space, no matter what you weighed, were you to apply
0.720 newtons of force, you would accelerate ... if you wanted to decelerate, you'd have to apply 0.720 newtons in the opposite direction.  All that energy expelled in starting and stopping is lost to entropy. 

You can't get more energy out of the deceleration than you applied during the acceleration.

Sure you can.  All you need to do is fly through an electromagnetic decelerator instead of using the thruster.

Is this not what the Prius does, when braking downhill?   And after your journey over hill and dale, don't you have to fill it up with gas again?  Because of entropy?

Quote
Then, as you come to a stop at the far end of the decelerator, you plug in and recharge your batteries.  IMCAC, if you were doing at least 6945/sqrt(η) m/s or so (where η is the efficiency of the decelerator/charger/battery system), you will be fully charged before the decelerator's caps run dry.

Isn't the efficiency term where entropy is factored in?

Quote
There are better ways; they involve rotation, which is a great way to move fast without going anywhere.  Even so, at the reported level of efficiency you do have to go pretty fast...

An electric motor rotates, so I get this.  But it doesn't go anywhere unless it pushes against something, which also can be done.  This is the operating principle of the Prius, which always runs out of gas, even though it never runs out of road. 

I don't get what point you are trying to make.

Quote from: JF
I believe that it should be theoretically possible to convert energy to momentum.

Quote from: 93143
It's not.  They are two different things.

That's what I thought, too.  Somebody tell me that my summary of the EM Drive, and the ME drive is incorrect:  You put electricity into it, and then it moves forward.  Note that I don't have the math to prove my belief; I only accept, and that tentatively, what is the topic of this thread: Conversion of energy to forward momentum.  I also don't seem to grasp how kinetic energy is apparently not related to momentum.

Quote from: 93143
You can't turn electrical energy into kinetic energy without throwing something away...

A rocket produces constant thrust at constant power, regardless of how fast it's moving...

Cars ... work on something in an external reference frame (ie: the road).

Go on...

Quote from: 93143
This device doesn't sound like its operating principle should depend on reference frame.  It might, if it's actually interacting with a local object like the Earth or the sun, or a lab magnet someone forgot was on the same circuit, or if it interacts with distant matter that's freakishly symmetric, or something like that...  Anyway, any device with a frame-independent thrust-to-power ratio, that doesn't throw anything out the back, can be induced to behave like a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.

That doesn't mean it is.  Mach effect seems to be, at worst, a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, since it does have something to push on and is thus capable of 'farming' energy from the rest of the universe when configured appropriately (thrusters on flywheel hooked to generator, for instance).  I'm not sure about this one...  I downloaded the paper, but it's in Chinese so I can't read it...

Woodward and all claim that the ME device pushes against the frame of rest of the universe, and state that they have derived a mathematical model which correctly restates the idea of action at a distance to support their thesis.   This math, I don't get.

Quote
The thrust-to-power ratio in this case is 3472 W/N, which is equivalent to ...

Which, believe it or not, I get.

Quote
If this is real (which I'm not taking a position on) it needs to be replicated ASAP, because it is huge.

Which is why this thread is so friggin' long, for one thing.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 11/11/2012 09:38 pm
You can't turn electrical energy into kinetic energy without throwing something away.  You have to have something to do work on, so it can do work on you in return; you can't do work on yourself.  This is blindingly obvious to anyone who understood high school physics.
Congratulations catching up with the conversation. Perhaps you could try to not be insulting to those of us who are already here, next time?

You said:

Now, if it turns out that all this drive does, if it works at all, is give you a terribly inefficient way to turn electrical energy into kinetic energy, leaving conservation of energy in-tact

What I get from this is that you're proposing that the device might allow velocity- and orientation-independent propellantless thrust but not locally-apparent free energy.

What I'm trying to point out is that this is fundamentally impossible for very basic physical reasons.  This has been made clear multiple times, not only on this thread but also on talk-polywell's M-E thread (as well as anywhere GoatGuy shows up, but unfortunately he seems to think that this makes M-E a conservation of energy violator), and my experience is that for some reason people have a bewildering amount of trouble grasping it...

Even if you didn't mean that, that's what it sounds like, and others could be misled.

You can't get more energy out of the deceleration than you applied during the acceleration.
Sure you can.  All you need to do is fly through an electromagnetic decelerator instead of using the thruster.
Is this not what the Prius does, when braking downhill?   And after your journey over hill and dale, don't you have to fill it up with gas again?  Because of entropy?

Partly because of entropy - that's why the gas engine isn't 100% efficient.  But even if it were, and if the electric motor operation and reclamative braking were 100% efficient, and the batteries didn't leak at all, and there were no frictional or air resistance or rolling resistance losses, you would still not end the journey with more stored energy than you had at the start.

This is because the energy required to produce a certain amount of thrust depends on the speed of the vehicle, so no matter how fast you go, it takes at least as much energy to get that fast as you can theoretically get by slowing back down.  Basic Newtonian mechanics.

The proposed thruster doesn't appear to have that limitation, which implies that its operating principle is something weird, that may lead to an entropy principle violation or even a conservation violation.

Quote
Isn't the efficiency term where entropy is factored in?

It's where entropy is generated.  But the Second Law of Thermodynamics provides no reason why η needs to be below unity in principle, because the described system is not a heat engine.  And there is certainly no fundamental physical reason η needs to be low enough to prevent local over-unity operation of the described system given an arbitrarily high vehicle speed.

Quote
Quote
There are better ways; they involve rotation...
I don't get what point you are trying to make.

Basically that the linear acceleration/deceleration system you and I described is monstrously impractical for energy generation, and a steady-state rotating system might be a better plan.

Quote from: JF
Somebody tell me that my summary of the EM Drive, and the ME drive is incorrect:  You put electricity into it, and then it moves forward.  Note that I don't have the math to prove my belief; I only accept, and that tentatively, what is the topic of this thread: Conversion of energy to forward momentum.  I also don't seem to grasp how kinetic energy is apparently not related to momentum.

Basically this:

Quote from: 93143
You can't turn electrical energy into kinetic energy without throwing something away...

You have to push on something, and it can't be yourself.  Newton's Third Law.  All of this discussion turns on that.

Cars push on the road.  Rockets push on their propellant.  M-E thrusters (if they work) push on the rest of the observable universe, but since their behaviour seems to be independent of velocity or at least orientation this has some interesting theoretical consequences.  It isn't yet clear what this EM-Drive is supposed to push on.

Also, both momentum and kinetic energy are frame-dependent, but to different powers, while other forms of energy are not frame-dependent.  This messes naďve attempts at equivalence right the #### up.

...

Energy being the capacity to do work, it might make more sense to consider kinetic energy not as inherent in the velocity of a moving object, but rather as inherent in the difference in velocities between two objects.  If everything is moving at the same velocity, there's no capacity to do work involved no matter what reference frame you pick.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 11/11/2012 10:15 pm
Actually, that bears repeating.

Kinetic energy is frame-dependent.  Electrical energy is not.

Anyone still having trouble should think about that for a bit.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 11/11/2012 10:35 pm
Posted on talk-polywell:

http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 11/11/2012 11:00 pm
We all know this already. Do you think we're slow or something?

The claim has been made, by both Roger Shawyer and these Chinese researchers, that this device violates conservation of momentum, using electrical power as the input.

The question is, if this device works, does that necessarily mean conservation of energy is also violated? I, and others, say it does whereas some say it doesn't, but can't explain in any consistent way why it doesn't.

Now, if you care to participate in the conversation without being condescending, please do, otherwise go insulting people elsewhere.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 11/12/2012 02:35 am
According to the discussion on talk-polywell, White's QVF theory says that Shawyer's drive should work.

March says that a possible reason their test article failed is that they couldn't eliminate a glow discharge with the vacuum pump they had, and their predicted thrust with the discharge limiting the voltage was below the sensitivity of the balance.

So we may be looking at something more closely related to M-E than was first thought...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/12/2012 04:45 am
According to the discussion on talk-polywell, White's QVF theory says that Shawyer's drive should work.

I certainly don't claim enough knowledge to discount that! Im really looking for someone who understands the paper well enough to explain how it would behave, if it behaves differently from the model I produced.

If it is simply 0.72 newtons from 2.5kw with no other proviso, we can use it to generate energy out of nothing. I don't consider conservation of energy to be sacrosanct if momentum is not. If momentum is maintained over an undefined volume that could also explain where the energy comes from anyway. Perhaps using the device would slow the expansion of the universe very slightly.

On the other hand, perhaps it somehow obeys the Ke=0.5mv^2 rule, ie it is propellentless in the sense that a propeller is propellentless. That is still far superior to the rocket equation. As far as I can see this would involve choosing a special frame to 'push against' and would have different performance in different directions since it is unlikely we are exactly stationary wrt to this frame, especially on earth.

Or there might be another behaviour that I haven't thought of. In any case we don't need to understand all the details of the device to understand someone's explanation of what it does and does not promise us.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/12/2012 02:48 pm
You can't get more energy out of the deceleration than you applied during the acceleration.

Sure you can.  All you need to do is fly through an electromagnetic decelerator instead of using the thruster.

Is this not what the Prius does, when braking downhill?   And after your journey over hill and dale, don't you have to fill it up with gas again?  Because of entropy?

Partly because of entropy - that's why the gas engine isn't 100% efficient.  But even if it were, and if the electric motor operation and reclamative braking were 100% efficient, and the batteries didn't leak at all, and there were no frictional or air resistance or rolling resistance losses, you would still not end the journey with more stored energy than you had at the start.

This is because the energy required to produce a certain amount of thrust depends on the speed of the vehicle, so no matter how fast you go, it takes at least as much energy to get that fast as you can theoretically get by slowing back down.  Basic Newtonian mechanics.

Wait a sec.  Didn't I say that you can't get more energy out of deceleration than you put in during acceleration?  Can you explain what this exchange below means?

Quote from: Me
You can't get more energy out of the deceleration than you applied during the acceleration.

Quote from: You
Sure you can.

Quote from: 93143
The proposed thruster doesn't appear to have that limitation, which implies that its operating principle is something weird, that may lead to an entropy principle violation or even a conservation violation.
 

Why'd you say "Sure you can [get more energy out of deceleration than you put in during acceleration]"?

Quote from: JF
Isn't the efficiency term where entropy is factored in?

Quote from: 93143
It's where entropy is generated.  But the Second Law of Thermodynamics provides no reason why η needs to be below unity in principle, because the described system is not a heat engine.  And there is certainly no fundamental physical reason η needs to be low enough to prevent local over-unity operation of the described system given an arbitrarily high vehicle speed.

Thanks for trying, but if eta is over-unity in a locally operated system, it means that the system is using energy.  On these various thrustors, that energy comes from the wall socket, AIUI.  So, I'm not sure what point you would be making here.

Quote from: JF
Quote from: 93143
There are better ways; they involve rotation...
I don't get what point you are trying to make.

Quote from: 93143
Basically that the linear acceleration/deceleration system you and I described is monstrously impractical for energy generation, and a steady-state rotating system might be a better plan.

Well, fine, but eta is still and always less than unity. No free lunch and all that.

Quote from: JF
Somebody tell me that my summary of the EM Drive, and the ME drive is incorrect:  You put electricity into it, and then it moves forward.  ...  I also don't seem to grasp how kinetic energy is apparently not related to momentum.

Basically this:

Quote from: 93143
You can't turn electrical energy into kinetic energy without throwing something away...

You have to push on something, and it can't be yourself.  Newton's Third Law.  All of this discussion turns on that.

Cars push on the road.  Rockets push on their propellant.  M-E thrusters (if they work) push on the rest of the observable universe...

Which I summarized earlier:

Woodward and all claim that the ME device pushes against the frame of rest of the universe, and state that they have derived a mathematical model which correctly restates the idea of action at a distance to support their thesis.

Quote from: 93143
...but since their behaviour seems to be independent of velocity or at least orientation this has some interesting theoretical consequences.

Hence the thread... Go on...

Quote from: 93143
It isn't yet clear what this EM-Drive is supposed to push on.

Shawyer asserts that group velocity imparts directional pressure, and thus momentum, AIUI:

Shawyer maintains that there is a causal relationship between the group velocity of a wave thru matter, and the actual momentum of the matter, and that he can manipulate it so that there is a preferential direction of momentum.  It appears to violate the conservation of momentum...

Shawyer is relating group velocity to momentum.  Go figger.  I cain't.

Quote from: 93143
Also, both momentum and kinetic energy are frame-dependent, but to different powers, while other forms of energy are not frame-dependent.  This messes naďve attempts at equivalence right the #### up.

Hence the thread... Go on...

Quote from: 93143
Energy being the capacity to do work, it might make more sense to consider kinetic energy not as inherent in the velocity of a moving object, but rather as inherent in the difference in velocities between two objects.  If everything is moving at the same velocity, there's no capacity to do work involved no matter what reference frame you pick.

An interesting sidetrack, to be sure. Not clear to me how it applies to this.

Both of these guys, Shawyer and Woodward, are saying that there is a direct causal relationship between electricity and forward momentum, and that they can control it.  Somewhat.

BTW, the new 2012 Chinese article uses the same illustration as is used in this 2008 article:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/12/2012 03:05 pm
Posted on talk-polywell:

http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf

This paper appears to be a translation of the one written in Chinese, and posted earlier.  I cannot be considered a peer reviewed paper.  The device that they use is protected by Chinese patents, and a device not available to western scientists:

Quote
This paper uses a nationally patented device - the rocket indifferent equilibrium thrust measurement device - to measure the propellantless microwave thruster net thrust. Thus further experimentally verifying the feasibility of the practical microwave propulsion device.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 11/12/2012 11:09 pm
Wait a sec.  Didn't I say that you can't get more energy out of deceleration than you put in during acceleration?  Can you explain what this exchange below means?

Quote from: Me
You can't get more energy out of the deceleration than you applied during the acceleration.

Quote from: You
Sure you can.

Quote from: 93143
The proposed thruster doesn't appear to have that limitation, which implies that its operating principle is something weird, that may lead to an entropy principle violation or even a conservation violation.
 

Why'd you say "Sure you can [get more energy out of deceleration than you put in during acceleration]"?

Being able to get more energy out of deceleration than you put in during acceleration is entirely contingent on the acceleration (but not the deceleration) being done by a device such as is being discussed/postulated/assumed in this thread - a propellantless thruster with a velocity-independent thrust-to-power ratio.

Quote
Quote from: 93143
It's where entropy is generated.  But the Second Law of Thermodynamics provides no reason why η needs to be below unity in principle, because the described system is not a heat engine.  And there is certainly no fundamental physical reason η needs to be low enough to prevent local over-unity operation of the described system given an arbitrarily high vehicle speed.

Thanks for trying, but if eta is over-unity in a locally operated system, it means that the system is using energy.  On these various thrustors, that energy comes from the wall socket, AIUI.  So, I'm not sure what point you would be making here.

In this case η is only applied to the deceleration phase (and the recharge phase, in my example, but whatever).  It is less than (or in the ideal case equal to) 1.

Given the reported behaviour of the thruster, which already includes all associated inefficiencies because it's an experimental result, more energy will be collected by the decelerator than was expended during acceleration if the peak velocity reached by the vehicle exceeds a critical value, in this case 6944.44444444444/η m/s (I goofed up the math last time; the previous post has been edited).

The only assumption required here is that the performance of the thruster doesn't depend on how fast it's going.  This is unprecedented for a propellantless device, and the result is locally-apparent free energy.  You cannot invoke conservation of energy to eliminate this result as you seem to be trying to do, because the problem is already fully specified.

Quote
Quote from: JF
Quote from: 93143
There are better ways; they involve rotation...
I don't get what point you are trying to make.
Quote from: 93143
Basically that the linear acceleration/deceleration system you and I described is monstrously impractical for energy generation, and a steady-state rotating system might be a better plan.
Well, fine, but eta is still and always less than unity. No free lunch and all that.

Nope.  See above.

Assuming the thruster reacts against distant matter or something like that, conservation is still respected globally.  But up close, the device does appear to be a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.

Quote
Quote from: 93143
...but since their behaviour seems to be independent of velocity or at least orientation this has some interesting theoretical consequences.
Hence the thread... Go on...

Well, if I understand correctly (which I wouldn't bet on), the M-E thruster implies an entropy condition violation, making it a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.  Proponents assure me that this is not the case, so I would rather not make a big deal of this before reading all the relevant papers...

At the very least, velocity- and orientation-independent behaviour has some interesting implications regarding how the thruster always manages to interact with "far-off active mass" that is essentially stationary with respect to itself.

And, of course, there's the transactional advanced/retarded wave stuff that purportedly results in instantaneous interaction, which wouldn't be necessary if this were a local conservative field effect (and thus not orientation-independent).

Quote
Quote from: 93143
Energy being the capacity to do work, it might make more sense to consider kinetic energy not as inherent in the velocity of a moving object, but rather as inherent in the difference in velocities between two objects.  If everything is moving at the same velocity, there's no capacity to do work involved no matter what reference frame you pick.
An interesting sidetrack, to be sure. Not clear to me how it applies to this.

Kinetic energy (as defined for a single object at a single velocity) is frame-dependent, while electrical energy is not.  In order to allow conversion of the one into the other, without reacting against anything, either the amount of electrical energy being used or the efficiency of the thruster would have to be quadratically related to the observer's reference frame, which is silly.  No need to worry about conservation of momentum; conservation of energy alone is sufficient to show that such a reactionless drive is not physically consistent.

The reason conservation of both momentum and energy are respected by a reaction drive is that the kinetic energy inherent in the relative motion of the vehicle and its exhaust is not frame-dependent.

...

Also, I thought the idea might help in the understanding of how a propellantless thruster with constant thrust-to-power ratio inevitably leads to the theoretical possibility of local over-unity operation when combined with reclamative braking or something conceptually similar.

Reclamative braking works on the principle of kinetic energy inherent in a velocity difference; it only works if a velocity difference is present between system components, and the energy collected is the same in all reference frames.

A propellantless thruster with a constant thrust-to-power ratio, on the other hand, doesn't care (or even know) how fast it's going because its operating principle doesn't involve interaction with something in a fixed reference frame other than its own.  (Hence the "interesting theoretical consequences" of M-E.)

Given a system in which the thrust from such a propellantless thruster is exactly countered by drag from a reclamative braking system (at constant efficiency, for the sake of argument), the power input is constant but the power output is linear with the velocity of the thruster.  Therefore, regardless of the value of the thrust-to-power ratio, there will be some thruster velocity at which this system produces more power than it consumes.  In the case of M-E, this power is siphoned off from the rest of the observable universe.  With a genuinely reactionless thruster, the energy appears out of thin air.

The variable efficiency of a real system does not save you from this theoretical result, because the efficiency of the braking system is mathematically unrelated to the behaviour of the thruster, and even if it weren't, the 'lost' energy would still show up as heat.  P = F·v doesn't have a loss coefficient, and it doesn't care what kind of energy the power P ends up as.

http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf
This paper appears to be a translation of the one written in Chinese, and posted earlier.  It cannot be considered a peer reviewed paper.

I never said it was.  But I wasn't the only person complaining of being unable to read Chinese...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 11/12/2012 11:19 pm
a device such as is being discussed/postulated/assumed in this thread - a propellantless thruster with a velocity-independent thrust-to-power ratio.

I like that wording.

Also, having read the translation of the paper, I'm not sure they are saying it is velocity-independent, but..

Kinetic energy (as defined for a single object at a single velocity) is frame-dependent, while electrical energy is not.  In order to allow conversion of the one into the other, without reacting against anything, either the amount of electrical energy being used or the efficiency of the thruster would have to be quadratically related to the observer's reference frame, which is silly.

Exactly. It's not Infinite Improbability Drive silly, but it's still pretty silly. What's not to like? :)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/13/2012 12:37 am
Being able to get more energy out of deceleration than you put in during acceleration is entirely contingent on the acceleration (but not the deceleration) being done by a device such as is being discussed/postulated/assumed in this thread - a propellantless thruster with a velocity-independent thrust-to-power ratio.

Well yeah. 

But first, thanks for the response.

Well yeah.  But the accelerating device I described is not this device; "a propellantless thruster with a velocity-independent thrust-to-power ratio".  I wouldn't mind believing in the premise of the thread, for its obvious utility in the HSF field.

It is the theoretical existence of this "propellantless thruster with a velocity-independent thrust-to-power ratio", which is the problem at hand.

Quote from: 93143
The only assumption required here is that the performance of the thruster doesn't depend on how fast it's going.  This is unprecedented for a propellantless device, and the result is locally-apparent free energy.  You cannot invoke conservation of energy to eliminate this result as you seem to be trying to do, because the problem is already fully specified.

Here is where I got and continue to stay, lost.  Locally apparent free energy.  Nor do I accept, perhaps only intuitively, but still, nor do I accept that the problem is "fully specified".

Quote from: 93143
Kinetic energy (as defined for a single object at a single velocity) is frame-dependent, while electrical energy is not.

The first part I get.  I'm travelling in the same direction and the same velocity as the speeding bullet.  I reach out my hand, NEO style, and pick the bullet up, and send it elsewhere.  Me and the bullet are in the same frame.  If me and the bullet hit the brick wall, stationary in our frame of reference, we go splat.

Electrical energy is different, always speeding around at more or less the speed of light; a constant, no matter the frame of reference.  So I sorta get that part as well.  Still hazy on the link (or lack of link) between the "mechanical", "framed" kinetic energy of a massy "thing", and the "frame" of an electrical energy wave.

These experimenters claim that they can take that electricity out of its frame, and direct it to mass in another arbitrary frame of reference.

Executive summary:  I'm not following you.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 11/13/2012 12:42 am
Well, if it works, there's two possibilities:

* You can make infinite energy with it, which is pretty silly; or
* The thrust/power ratio drops off as you go faster, which is pretty silly also.

So, if it works, things are going to be silly, it's just a question of which kind of silly.

 8)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 11/13/2012 02:27 am
The first part I get.  I'm travelling in the same direction and the same velocity as the speeding bullet.  I reach out my hand, NEO style, and pick the bullet up, and send it elsewhere.  Me and the bullet are in the same frame.  If me and the bullet hit the brick wall, stationary in our frame of reference, we go splat.

Electrical energy is different, always speeding around at more or less the speed of light; a constant, no matter the frame of reference.  So I sorta get that part as well.  Still hazy on the link (or lack of link) between the "mechanical", "framed" kinetic energy of a massy "thing", and the "frame" of an electrical energy wave.

These experimenters claim that they can take that electricity out of its frame, and direct it to mass in another arbitrary frame of reference.

Executive summary:  I'm not following you.

For electrical energy, consider a battery charged up with 50 kJ of chemical energy (which is just another form of electromagnetic energy).  Accelerate that battery to 1000 m/s (fast, but nonrelativistic).  What is the stored chemical energy in that battery?

50 kJ.  It hasn't changed.

So if you use this battery to directly impart kinetic energy to a vehicle, the kinetic energy it imparts has to be the same in all reference frames, because the energy used to impart it is the same in all reference frames.

Except that it can't be, because kinetic energy, when defined as 0.5mv˛ for a single chunk of matter of mass m at a single velocity v, is inherently not the same in all reference frames.

But if you use that chemical energy to push something else in one direction, causing the spacecraft to accelerate in the opposite direction, the sum of the kinetic energy changes in the vehicle and its reaction mass is the same in all reference frames.

This is why conservation of energy inherently requires reaction mass.  And that is why the M-E people are so keen on pointing out that their idea is not a "reactionless" thruster, but merely a "propellantless" thruster.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/13/2012 03:25 am
Well, if it works, there's two possibilities:

* You can make infinite energy with it, which is pretty silly; or
* The thrust/power ratio drops off as you go faster, which is pretty silly also.

So, if it works, things are going to be silly, it's just a question of which kind of silly.

 8)


That is the same 'sillyness' that Relativity has.  Although there the mass increases with velocity when approaching the speed of light.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/13/2012 05:55 am
Well, if it works, there's two possibilities:

* You can make infinite energy with it, which is pretty silly; or
* The thrust/power ratio drops off as you go faster, which is pretty silly also.

So, if it works, things are going to be silly, it's just a question of which kind of silly.

 8)


That is the same 'sillyness' that Relativity has.  Although there the mass increases with velocity when approaching the speed of light.

It does sound a bit similar, but in this case we are talking about velocity relative to some specific frame. This is exactly the situation that you get from a propeller in air. A 'space propeller' pushing against stray atoms does not violate any laws and is potentially far more efficient than a rocket.

Relativity on the other hand is famous for removing the need for light to propagate in a specific frame such as the 'ether'.

By the way, talking about what is and isnt possible, Here is another 'possible' as far as I can tell. if there were such a thing as a tractor beam that could reach across interstellar distances we could swing though the stars like tarzan, always chosing a new star with the desired relative velocity to us. This also gives us energy for free, at least locally.

We can think up various 'propellentless-like' forms of propulsion that do not violate physics, we just don't have anyone to explain the specific one being claimed in this case. It would be the first thing I clarified if ever I were to propose a mechanism I thought could work.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/13/2012 02:13 pm
The first part I get. ...

Electrical energy is different, always speeding around at more or less the speed of light; a constant, no matter the frame of reference. ...

These experimenters claim that they can take that electricity out of its frame, and direct it to mass in another arbitrary frame of reference.

So if you use this battery to directly impart kinetic energy to a vehicle, the kinetic energy it imparts has to be the same in all reference frames, because the energy used to impart it is the same in all reference frames.

Except that it can't be, because kinetic energy, when defined as 0.5mv˛ for a single chunk of matter of mass m at a single velocity v, is inherently not the same in all reference frames.

This part I get, I think; once you accelerate in a preferred direction, things look different when viewed from different reference frames.  But the energy sum remains constant, what with the prop going out one end, and the battery getting weaker.  Eventually, the spacecraft stops accelerating when the battery dies.

So far so good; I've known this part since before I started reading this thread.

Quote from: 93143
This is why conservation of energy inherently requires reaction mass.  And that is why the M-E people are so keen on pointing out that their idea is not a "reactionless" thruster, but merely a "propellantless" thruster.

Thanks for restating the problem at hand.

So....

What are they pushing on?  Woodward says, "distant matter".  Shawyer says, I think, "group velocity".

Sciama says, in 1964, "Inertial forces are exerted by matter, not by absolute space. In this form the principle contains two ideas:

"(1) Inertial forces have a dynamical rather than a kinematical origin, and so must be derived from a field theory [or possibly an actionat-a-distance theory in the sense of J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman... ].

"(2) The whole of the inertial field must be due to sources, so that in solving the inertial field equations the boundary conditions must be chosen appropriately. "

[I've attached Woodward's 2004 paper, claiming fair use, for educational purposes.]

After Sciama's quote above, Woodward begins to explain his interpretation of Mach's principle, and how it can afford action at a distance.  I have a limited understanding of his line of argument.

**************************

As an aside:

This paper appears to be a translation of the one written in Chinese, and posted earlier.  It cannot be considered a peer reviewed paper.

I never said it was.

I never said that you said it was.  All you did was report the existance of the paper on the Polywell site.  You cannot be assumed to be in favor or, or opposed to the paper, on the basis of your having reported its existance alone.

You miss the point here.  Let an observation stand as an observation; do not place an accusatory frame of reference around an observation without reason.  I'm quite aware, in principle, of my imperfections; it's not about you and me.

Like I was saying, it is not a peer reviewed paper.  Furthermore, the device that these people are discussing is protected by the Chinese patent system.

As a nested aside, we all know how much they respect our patent system; with their patent system, I'm sure they're very particular about intellectual property rights.  Moving right along...

The device itself is not available for independent verification; the paper cannot be analyzed in principle by an arbitrary peer, without access to the device.  According to their illustrations, it is exactly the same device pictured in an article from 2008, which therefore offers the reviewer absolutely no new information about the device.  The paper presents the results that these researchers have measured when using the device in a certain way.

Nothing can be definitely concluded from the work of the Chinese experimenters, as presented.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 11/13/2012 02:35 pm
if there were such a thing as a tractor beam that could reach across interstellar distances we could swing though the stars like tarzan, always chosing a new star with the desired relative velocity to us. This also gives us energy for free, at least locally.

We can think up various 'propellentless-like' forms of propulsion...

The tractor beam is not propellantless - the stars are the propellant (though pulled towards the craft, rather than the normal pushed away).

The tractor beam would also be doing work against the star (to accelerate the ship), so that wouldn't be free, either?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aero on 11/13/2012 07:45 pm
I had some fun with this by comparing the results from the subject paper to a rocket engine using massive photons as the reaction mass. The paper here:

http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf (http://www.emdrive.com/yang-juan-paper-2012.pdf)

Basically, the following theory is as good as any, IMO, and a lot simpler.

Start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon)

Energy = n*h*f where n is the number of photons, h is the Planck constant = 6.63E-34 J.s and f is frequency in cycles per second. Given that the Energy is 2500 Watts and f = 2.45 GHz, calculate the number of photons, n = 1.54E+27.

The subject paper claims Thrust = 720 mN or 0.72 N. Using T = mdot * Ve, and Ve ~= c = 299792458 m/s, calculate mdot = 2.4E-9 kg/s. It follows that each photon must mass about 1.56E-36 kg if they were being generated like a flashlight would. We know that is wrong as the upper limit of photon mass under normal conditions has been established by multiple experiments to be less than 1E-50 to 1E-60 kg.

But Wait! Look what happens when photons are constrained in a resonate cavity.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/11/researchers-get-trapped-photons-to-act-like-massive-particles/ (http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/11/researchers-get-trapped-photons-to-act-like-massive-particles/)

Quote
At this point, the system "is formally equivalent to an ideal gas of massive bosons." Massive, in this case, being 6.7 x 10-36kg.

And 6.7E-36 kg is close enough to the above calculated 1.56E-36 kg as to make no difference. The only thing left to figure out is, "Where do these massive photons go after they react against the cavity walls?" Well obviously they tunnel into the Quantum Foam underlying the universe and disappear from our perceived reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam)

Edit added: On second thought, the massive photons more likely simply disipate, returning to their normal condition with masses less than 10E-60 kg and continue to bounce around until adsorbed by the walls as heat. In any case, the question becomes, "Why does the force exhibit a preferred direction?"
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/13/2012 10:41 pm
if there were such a thing as a tractor beam that could reach across interstellar distances we could swing though the stars like tarzan, always chosing a new star with the desired relative velocity to us. This also gives us energy for free, at least locally.

We can think up various 'propellentless-like' forms of propulsion...

The tractor beam is not propellantless - the stars are the propellant (though pulled towards the craft, rather than the normal pushed away).

The tractor beam would also be doing work against the star (to accelerate the ship), so that wouldn't be free, either?

cheers, Martin

I said 'propellentless-like' ;)

But anyway, if you look a couple of posts up you will see people claiming the EM-drive (or whichever, I get them mixed up) is actually pushing against the universe as a whole or some such, in which case it is just another propellentless-like drive also.

The thing about my Tarzan drive is that when you understand the mechanism, the seemingly-free energy is explained: a sort of gravitational slingshot effect (my tractor beam acts like a lasso, silly, but breaks no laws). free energy comes from selecting stars with different velocities). If the EM-drive acts propellentless then there is no particular reason to reject seemingly-free energy. I dont think anyone on this thread has defined another consistent behavior. (To propose it becomes less effective at high velocity requires someone to define which frame this velocity is with respect to even if not why. Without that we dont even know how it claims to behave.)

This is really something that should be investigated and explained very clearly by whoever made the original claim though. Its weird that we are left to debate it here IMO.

My absolute first reaction to any propellentless proposal is to ask is what happens if we try to construct a perpetual motion machine as described earlier, just as my first reaction to any FTL proposal is how it would behave if we attempted to create a paradox in the usual way.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: joek on 11/14/2012 01:34 am
Furthermore, the device that these people are discussing is protected by the Chinese patent system.

Which device are you referring to?  The device covered by their patent claim is for measuring the net thrust of the em-drive.  They do not appear to have asserted any claims on their implementation of the em-drive, which seems to be the same as Shawyer's.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: IRobot on 11/14/2012 01:53 am
My absolute first reaction to any propellentless proposal is to ask is what happens if we try to construct a perpetual motion machine as described earlier, just as my first reaction to any FTL proposal is how it would behave if we attempted to create a paradox in the usual way.
It is not a perpetual motion machine as energy enters the system, for example by using solar panels. The problem with perpetual motion machines is energy dissipation, not "motion".
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/14/2012 02:59 am
My absolute first reaction to any propellentless proposal is to ask is what happens if we try to construct a perpetual motion machine as described earlier, just as my first reaction to any FTL proposal is how it would behave if we attempted to create a paradox in the usual way.
It is not a perpetual motion machine as energy enters the system, for example by using solar panels. The problem with perpetual motion machines is energy dissipation, not "motion".

Hi IRobot,
You missed the middle of this conversation.

An explanation of how a propellantless thruster can create energy from nothing is given here.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.msg977917#msg977917

Essentially,
(a) if a propellantless thruster can produce a constant force for a constant power, then you can produce a velocity proportional to the energy put in.

(b) but kinetic energy is defined by Ek=0.5mv^2, so using a totally conventional device we can extract energy proportional to the square of the velocity.

This lets us generate more energy than we put in. The example uses some exact numbers.

Then there was some discussion of whether a propellantless thruster could follow a different equation from (a) and so on. I gave some examples but as has been pointed out, these are not truely propellantless.

I personally like the Tarzan drive as an example of how silly you can get without breaking any laws of conservation :)

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/14/2012 02:00 pm
Furthermore, the device that these people are discussing is protected by the Chinese patent system.

Which device are you referring to?  The device covered by their patent claim is for measuring the net thrust of the em-drive.  They do not appear to have asserted any claims on their implementation of the em-drive, which seems to be the same as Shawyer's.

I re-read the English translation of the Chinese paper.  You are correct: the device explicitly mentioned as "patented", is the measuring device, and I mis-read the first time.  However, it measures the thrust of another device, the EM-drive, which apparently has not changed in design over the last four years.

Their experimental results cannot be duplicated until both devices, the one which thrusts, and the one which measures the thrust, can be built by another, independent, lab, and its net thrust also measured.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aero on 11/14/2012 03:57 pm
Furthermore, the device that these people are discussing is protected by the Chinese patent system.

Which device are you referring to?  The device covered by their patent claim is for measuring the net thrust of the em-drive.  They do not appear to have asserted any claims on their implementation of the em-drive, which seems to be the same as Shawyer's.

I re-read the English translation of the Chinese paper.  You are correct: the device explicitly mentioned as "patented", is the measuring device, and I mis-read the first time.  However, it measures the thrust of another device, the EM-drive, which apparently has not changed in design over the last four years.

Their experimental results cannot be duplicated until both devices, the one which thrusts, and the one which measures the thrust, can be built by another, independent, lab, and its net thrust also measured.

No one cares about the thrust measurement device. The thruster is the only item of interest. There are many thrusters in the sub Newton range and all have been measured on a thrust stand of one type or another. Pick any existing thrust stand rated at 0.1 to 2 Newton thrust range and use it to measure thrust. If a particular mechanism is needed to measure the thrust then the results are bogus.

If you want to build an emdrive in your garage, you could suspend your drive on a pendulum and measure the pendulum deflection from vertical while under thrust. I'm sure you can calculate the force applied to cause the deflection you measure.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/14/2012 04:04 pm
No one cares about the thrust measurement device. ... If a particular mechanism is needed to measure the thrust then the results are bogus.

You did read what you wrote, I trust.

Note that neither the EM drive device, nor the thrust measurement device, at this writing, are subject to peer review.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aero on 11/14/2012 04:26 pm
No one cares about the thrust measurement device. ... If a particular mechanism is needed to measure the thrust then the results are bogus.

You did read what you wrote, I trust.

Note that neither the EM drive device, nor the thrust measurement device, at this writing, are subject to peer review.

John - You're grasping at straws. The topic is Propellantless Field Propulsion and application. The test stand has no bearing on the topic beyond giving assurances that the thrust measurements were accurately made. Any good test stand will do, even a pendulum.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/14/2012 05:11 pm
John - You're grasping at straws. The topic is Propellantless Field Propulsion and application. The test stand has no bearing on the topic beyond giving assurances that the thrust measurements were accurately made. Any good test stand will do, even a pendulum.

Aero:  I'm not grasping at anything.  As you may have noticed, I'm not trying to prove anything.  The experimental protocol here does not seem to be subject to peer review.  Are you saying that it is?  And you are totally satisfied with the paper?  And that the results of this invention are accurate as reported?  I'd ask, to the point of investing in it?  Which of course, I wouldn't ask.  Meh. 

The common wisdom is that EM drive does not work.  In the case of Woodward's work, and probably Shawyer's as well, the test stand is almost as important as the tested device itself, since the expected forces are thought to be very low in the experiments demonstrated.

Woodward and Paul March have gone to great lengths to account for spurious outside signals, and even now, can barely ascertain the output of his device from noise.

A pendulum will most assuredly not work.  Either dig up the thread to find out for yourself about some of these particulars, or take my word for it.  The measurement of the forces is key, until such time as they float one of these devices out on the conference room table.

In my opinion, the measurements of this group cannot be taken at face value and cannot even be checked.  YM, as they say, MV.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aero on 11/14/2012 07:09 pm
720 mN is 2.6 oz-force. That is small but a real world level of force. It takes nothing special to measure it. It is 3 to 5 orders of magnitude larger than the forces that Woodward and Paul March have gone to great lengths to work with and measure accurately.

Do I think the EMdrive works? I have no opinion on that - see my posted theory about a page up-thread for an idea of what I think of the EMdrive explainations.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/15/2012 02:20 pm
720 mN is 2.6 oz-force. That is small but a real world level of force. It takes nothing special to measure it. It is 3 to 5 orders of magnitude larger than the forces that Woodward and Paul March have gone to great lengths to work with and measure accurately.

Well, I gotta say that I completely overlooked the scale of the force here, and got stuck in underestimating it, therefore thinking their measurement device was to be questioned.  My bad.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aero on 11/15/2012 03:12 pm

Quote
Well, I gotta say that I completely overlooked the scale of the force here, ...

Now that we're on the same page I must say that it is the magnitude of the EMdrive thrust that makes me both interested and skeptical. But thrust is large enough and the EMdrive appears to be simple enough that it could be confirmed by a highschool science level experiment. It utilizes components available in a comon household microwave oven so might possibly be built is a garage. I don't know but the devil is always in the details ...

Really, though, the device doesn't seem any more complex that a fusor and there are a lot of bright people at fuzor.org buillding those devices. Maybe some bright kid will start a web page, EMdrive.org, and we'll start hearing rumors about further test results.

As for my theory about how it works, I ended by guessing that the massive bosons tunnel into the Quantum foam. That is not necessary. The same thrust result could be achieved if the massive bosons dissipated while moving in a preferred direction( due to the shape of the device perhaps), and making a Bose-Einstein condensate dissipate is really easy. Making it dissipate while traveling in a preferred direction would be the trick.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/15/2012 04:26 pm
...making a Bose-Einstein condensate dissipate is really easy...

In high school? 

About scale.  Micro, milli, whatevs...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aero on 11/15/2012 04:32 pm
...making a Bose-Einstein condensate dissipate is really easy...

In high school? 

About scale.  Micro, milli, whatevs...

Yes. Creating a Bose-Einstein condensate has been hard (until now?) but letting it dissipate is really, really easy. In fact, so easy that avoiding dissipation is the problem.

Scale. You know this - 10^-6, 10^-3, 1 newton = 0.1019716213 kilogram-force
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/15/2012 05:17 pm
Scale. You know this ...

Just sayin'... I'm constantly dropping/adding zeros.  A cross I have to bear...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 11/15/2012 07:39 pm
thrust is large enough and the EMdrive appears to be simple enough that it could be confirmed by a highschool science level experiment. It utilizes components available in a comon household microwave oven so might possibly be built is a garage. I don't know but the devil is always in the details ...

Is there a document somewhere detailing the dimensions of a drive that has actually worked? So far as I can tell, everyone reporting success has failed to provide even that trivial level of detail.


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aero on 11/15/2012 09:47 pm
thrust is large enough and the EMdrive appears to be simple enough that it could be confirmed by a highschool science level experiment. It utilizes components available in a comon household microwave oven so might possibly be built is a garage. I don't know but the devil is always in the details ...

Is there a document somewhere detailing the dimensions of a drive that has actually worked? So far as I can tell, everyone reporting success has failed to provide even that trivial level of detail.




http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdf (http://www.emdrive.com/NWPU2010translation.pdf)

Quote
In the conical microwave thrusters in Figure 1, the radiated microwave produce
three forces normal to the axes of the front, back end and its side, Fs1, Fs2 and
Fs3, the net thrust obtained by the thrusters along the axes are
Fa=Fa1-Fa2-Fa3cosθ. In order to obtain the largest thrust, the design of the
cavity requires Fa1/Fa2 to be the largest, Fa3/Fa1 to be the smallest, so
Fa≈Fa1-Fa2.

The paper didn't give dimensions, but does give the relative dimensions. I'm thinking that the microwave frequency (wave length) might define the size of the resonance cavity. The frequency of 2.45 GHz would give a wave length of  12.236 cm.

Edit: WARNING -  Microwave radiation is dangerous, causes cell and eye damage. Microwave radiation can cause cataracts.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 11/17/2012 05:00 pm
The only thing I regret is that I've been born in the 20th century and that humanity isn't that far yet to stravel between the stars. I hope that before I die I whitness the fistst interstallar human flight in history... Earth need's that for survival.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/17/2012 11:27 pm
The only thing I regret is that I've been born in the 20th century and that humanity isn't that far yet to stravel between the stars. I hope that before I die I whitness the fistst interstallar human flight in history... Earth need's that for survival.
I wouldn't worry about it. we have hundreds of icy little worlds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size) right here. Consider Albiorix, a tiny moon of Saturn way down that list, a mere 16km in radius. That translates to a 100km circumference.
These will actually be much easier to colonize than earthlike worlds. If our moon was another earth (pre life, or with incompatible life) I don't know if we would even have managed apollo yet. It wouldnt support  earth life, might actively repel it, and it would be incredibly hard to bring anyone back.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 11/18/2012 01:04 am
The only thing I regret is that I've been born in the 20th century and that humanity isn't that far yet to stravel between the stars. I hope that before I die I whitness the fistst interstallar human flight in history... Earth need's that for survival.

if you had been born in the future, you would regret you had not been born even further in time, to be able to travel between galaxies, whatever.

just 100 years ago people could barely fly at all.

anyway, immortality or at least life spans of 500 years or more are "almost" within our grasp. Scientists predict the first person that will live 150 years old is alive and is already 50 years old right now.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 11/19/2012 02:05 pm
Scientists predict the first person that will live 150 years old is alive and is already 50 years old right now.

Dang.  I missed that opportunity almost ten years ago...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/03/2012 01:55 pm
I have not seen a discussion of how the propellantless EMDrive could work using radiation pressure as discussed within the recent Chinese paper.

The Chinese paper states that this propellantless drive works like a solar sail. With a solar sail the radiation pressure from the sun is absorbed at 1 AU from the sun at a pressure of 4.6 uN/m2 and is reflected at twice this pressure at 9.15 uN/m2. The sun has a power flux density of 1.37 kw/m2 at 1AU.

The scale of these solar sail radiation pressures appear to be 100,000 times higher than the EMDrive propulsive force at 720 mN for a 2.5-kw power input, but the EMDrive uses a 2.45-Ghz microwave cavity that may have dimensions of 6-cm which is the half wavelength at 2.45-Ghz. Because radiation pressure is equal to one third of the total radiant energy per unit volume within a space, the unit volume of the EMDrive microwave cavity might be 10,000 times less space (i.e. 0.06-meter x 0.06-m x 0.06-m) than a solar sail in open space which may mean that the total radiant energy for EMDrive is 10,000 times higher per unit volume.

This 10,000 times higher radiant energy per unit volume is then absorbed or reflected over smaller surface areas (i.e. 0.06-m x 0.06-m = 0.0036-m2 versus 1-m2) within the microwave cavity which potentially increases the radiation pressure by additional orders of magnitude.

The photons creating the radiation pressure within the microwave cavity are bouncing around in many directions as they are absorbed, reflected, or scattered inside the cavity walls. These photons carry their momentum to these cavity walls in many different directions, and the Chinese paper describes that all of these different force vectors must be shaped and added to provide a net positive thrust in a single desired direction.

As an analogy, this appears to be similar to the first attempts to sail into the wind over a thousand years ago by adding and shaping the then unknown force vectors of aerodynamic lift (Bernoulli's principal) and hydrofoil hydrodynamic forces of a hull in water. These 2 sets of different forces acting on a sail boat had to be shaped and added to sail against the force of the wind, just like the the EMDrive radiation pressure force vectors must be shaped and added to overcome radiation pressure force vectors going in the "wrong" direction within the microwave cavity.

The photons within the microwave cavity have their mass and number increased due to the energy given to them at 2.45-Ghz. The density, number, and combined mass of these photons create a lot more pressure within the confined smaller density of the microwave cavity and the smaller surface areas that the photons are able to strike. If photons are reflected inside the cavity walls, then they can impart their pressure at twice the absorbtion pressure many times before final photon absorption or scatteing, but all of these force vectors must be shaped and added to obtain a net positive thrust in a desired direction.

I would think that there are many people in this forum who understand the principals of propellantless thrust from radiation pressure on a solar sail and who understand what the radiation pressure a 2.5-kw 2.45-Ghz power source could apply on a surface area located 6-cm away from it. I have not seen a discussion within this forum on how the EMDrive could work in this way (as the Chinese paper discusses), and I am sure that many of you understand this much better than I do.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/03/2012 02:16 pm
Then why not just stay with a solar sail? 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/03/2012 03:15 pm
Then why not just stay with a solar sail? 

Because a solar sail can only receive 1.37-kw/m2 at 1 AU from the sun and the inverse sqaure less radiation pressure further from the sun versus the EMDrive restricitng many more KW or MW of onboard power into the confined volume of a 0.06-m x 0.06-m x 0.06-m microwave cavity giving it maybe over 100,000 times more energy per volume and pressure per surface area than a solar sail.

A solar sail absorbs 4 x 10-6 Newtons per m2 so you need a 1,000-meter by 1,000-meter sail (i.e. 1 km2 solar sail for 4 Newtons of pressure absorbtion) to be within the thrust range of an EMDrive which could provide a similar 4 Newtons of thrust with 18-kw of onboard power sent into its small microwave cavity.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: douglas100 on 12/03/2012 03:28 pm
Quote from Afrocle:

Quote
If photons are reflected inside the cavity walls, then they can impart their pressure at twice the absorbtion pressure many times before final photon absorption or scattering, but all of these force vectors must be shaped and added to obtain a net positive thrust in a desired direction.

You'll be aware that the part I made bold is controversial. Newtonian mechanics suggests that it is not possible to shape the force vectors within the cavity to produce net thrust in a given direction.

On the other hand, John Fornaro has a point: at least we know the solar sail works.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/03/2012 03:28 pm
Afrocle:  Have you vetted their math, or are you accepting it?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: douglas100 on 12/03/2012 03:30 pm
Whose math?

EDIT: Sorry John, I thought that question was directed at me.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 12/03/2012 03:30 pm
Some critics of the EM drive say that it will not produce thrust as soon as the power does not come from an external source.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/03/2012 04:39 pm
Afrocle:  Have you vetted their math, or are you accepting it?

The Chinese paper gives a direction for how the EMDrive works (i.e. it is like a solar sail working under the understood principles of radiation pressure), but it does not give specific math of how they come to the 720 mN thrust with a 2.5-kw 2.45-Ghz input. The Chinese also do not say what the dimensions of their microwave cavity are or how it is shaped. They say that they use "integrals" to shape the walls of the cavity to get a net positive thrust in a particular direction, but they don't give the math for this.

If this thruster is something easy to make (which is possible when I look at the YouTube video), then I would keep these dimensions and the shape of the cavity a trade secret and rapidly bring it to market as a replacement for existing Hall-effect thrusters.

If this is a hoax, then they might be vague on purpose.

I tend to believe that someone (not me) on this forum who understands radiation pressure and microwave cavities can easily and rapidly show us how the magnitude of radiation pressure needed for 720 nN of thrust can be achieved by insering a 2.5-kw and 2.45-Ghz wave into a ~ 6-cm cavity.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/03/2012 04:43 pm
Some critics of the EM drive say that it will not produce thrust as soon as the power does not come from an external source.

Maybe I do not understand your statement, but isn't that obvious?

The EMDrive will only have thrust when there is external power being supplied to it from solar panels or a nuclear reactor or some other source of electricity.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/03/2012 05:02 pm
Quote from Afrocle:

Quote
If photons are reflected inside the cavity walls, then they can impart their pressure at twice the absorbtion pressure many times before final photon absorption or scattering, but all of these force vectors must be shaped and added to obtain a net positive thrust in a desired direction.

You'll be aware that the part I made bold is controversial. Newtonian mechanics suggests that it is not possible to shape the force vectors within the cavity to produce net thrust in a given direction.

On the other hand, John Fornaro has a point: at least we know the solar sail works.

I agree with you that shaping the force vectors for net positive thrust is a controversial point.

This is why I made the analogy to the use of triangular sails that could sail into the wind over 1,000 years ago, even though the math and principals underlying the shaping and adding of the force vectors from airfoil wings (i.e. the triangular sails) and hydrofoil hulls did not exist until 1,000 years later.

We know that solar sails and laser sails work using radiation pressure today, just like people knew that they could sail with the wind using direct wind pressure on square sails over 4,000 years ago. The hard part is applying the same principals in a much more complex environment adding multiple different force vectors.

I think that someone on this forum could check the math to see if you can get milliNewtons of radiation pressure at a distance under 10-cm from a 2.5-kw 2.45-Ghz source. This will at least let us know that the orders of magnitude of the EMDrive are possible.

I agree that it will be much harder to figure out how you add the trillions of force vectors from photons bouncing off of microwave cavity walls as reflections (i.e. twice the absorption power), as absorptions, or as heat to come up with a net positive thrust moving in a single desired direction. When the Chinese discuss "integrals" within their paper, I assume that they are using a computer to model different shapes and materials within the microwave cavity to achieve their goal. I personally think that net positive thrust should be possible, but I don't know how to design microwave cavities or how to measure radiation pressure levels within cavities.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 12/03/2012 05:35 pm
Quote
Maybe I do not understand your statement, but isn't that obvious?

The EMDrive will only have thrust when there is external power being supplied to it from solar panels or a nuclear reactor or some other source of electricity.

No, I meant a powersource that is not in the same reference frame as the EM drive (e.g. attached to it). From what I understand all current experiments were run with the power supply not beig moved with the drive itself.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/03/2012 05:54 pm
Quote
Maybe I do not understand your statement, but isn't that obvious?

The EMDrive will only have thrust when there is external power being supplied to it from solar panels or a nuclear reactor or some other source of electricity.

No, I meant a powersource that is not in the same reference frame as the EM drive (e.g. attached to it). From what I understand all current experiments were run with the power supply not beig moved with the drive itself.

The photons causing the radiation pressure are moving at the speed of light, so I do not understand how the power source moving with the EMDrive would negatively the direction of the photons.

Having the power source attached to the EMDrive could have a negative effect in that the radiation pressure from the power source sends momentum or force vectors in directions opposite to the intended net positive direction of thrust (versus the sun sending radiation pressure to a solar sail in a line from the sun to the space ship), but I think that this is where the theory behind the shaping and adding of these vectors within the microwave cavity comes into play.

Shaping the direction, number, energy, mass, and magnitude of photons is very different then shaping how air comes from a propellor to create thrust (and drag). I think that the fact that photons reflect off surfaces at twice the radiation pressure that they are absorbed by surfaces gives the engineers of a microwave cavity something to work with.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 12/03/2012 07:32 pm
Quote
Having the power source attached to the EMDrive could have a negative effect

that is what I have heard
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 12/03/2012 08:07 pm
What's being suggested is that the force is an electrodynamic effect balanced by an equal and opposite force somewhere else in the power system.  Attaching the power system to the thruster would thereby eliminate the measured thrust.

I don't know if that's true.

I do know that the maximum thrust achievable by radiation pressure at 2.5 kW is 8.3 micronewtons.  But then, we're discussing a resonant cavity here; the instantaneous power level is beside the point.  (If you wanted single-shot radiation pressure performance, you could just shine a light backwards from your spacecraft.)

You cannot get a net thrust by adding the radiation pressure on all sides of the chamber, unless something weird is going on that renders the thruster an open system interacting with [part of] the rest of the universe somehow.  Simple vector addition will always sum to zero; it doesn't matter what the shape of the chamber is.  This is a geometric law.

If this thing works, it will be for some weird reason, probably involving nonlocality and/or zero-point fluctuations or some such.  Reportedly, Sonny White's QVF theory predicts thrust from an EM-Drive, but Jim Woodward's M-E theory does not.

Quote
I think that the fact that photons reflect off surfaces at twice the radiation pressure that they are absorbed by surfaces gives the engineers of a microwave cavity something to work with.

It doesn't.  Generating them produces the other half of the reflection pressure.

Guys, you are not going to make this thing work by messing with Newtonian mechanics and Euclidean geometry and Maxwellian electromagnetics.  You are up against fundamental generally-applicable mathematical truths here.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 12/03/2012 08:10 pm
Quote
What's being suggested is that the force is an electrodynamic effect balanced by an equal and opposite force somewhere else in the power system.  Attaching the power system to the thruster would thereby eliminate the measured thrust.
You explained it better than I could have, thanks!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 12/03/2012 08:26 pm

The Chinese paper gives a direction for how the EMDrive works (i.e. it is like a solar sail working under the understood principles of radiation pressure), but it does not give specific math of how they come to the 720 mN thrust with a 2.5-kw 2.45-Ghz input.

If you want thrust from radiation pressure, there are much easier ways of doing it.  Just use a light bulb and a parabolic mirror.  The isp from such a photon-rocket "thruster" is enormous.  However, obviously no one uses such a thing, the reason being that the thrust is too small.  It's better to add a small amount of reaction mass and use something like an ion drive.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/03/2012 10:11 pm
What's being suggested is that the force is an electrodynamic effect balanced by an equal and opposite force somewhere else in the power system.  Attaching the power system to the thruster would thereby eliminate the measured thrust.

I don't know if that's true.

I do know that the maximum thrust achievable by radiation pressure at 2.5 kW is 8.3 micronewtons.  But then, we're discussing a resonant cavity here; the instantaneous power level is beside the point.  (If you wanted single-shot radiation pressure performance, you could just shine a light backwards from your spacecraft.)

You cannot get a net thrust by adding the radiation pressure on all sides of the chamber, unless something weird is going on that renders the thruster an open system interacting with [part of] the rest of the universe somehow.  Simple vector addition will always sum to zero; it doesn't matter what the shape of the chamber is.  This is a geometric law.

If this thing works, it will be for some weird reason, probably involving nonlocality and/or zero-point fluctuations or some such.  Reportedly, Sonny White's QVF theory predicts thrust from an EM-Drive, but Jim Woodward's M-E theory does not.

Quote
I think that the fact that photons reflect off surfaces at twice the radiation pressure that they are absorbed by surfaces gives the engineers of a microwave cavity something to work with.

It doesn't.  Generating them produces the other half of the reflection pressure.

Guys, you are not going to make this thing work by messing with Newtonian mechanics and Euclidean geometry and Maxwellian electromagnetics.  You are up against fundamental generally-applicable mathematical truths here.

How did you calculate your 8.3 x 10-6 Newtons of thrust from a 2.5-kw power source? It is already established that a solar sail achieves a larger 9.15 x 10-6 Newtons of thrust from a smaller 1.37-kw power source (i.e. the sun at 1 AU).

What or where is this "equal and opposite force somewhere else in the power system" that balances the other EMDrive forces and prevents the EMDrive from working?

Thank you.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 12/03/2012 10:22 pm
Quote
t is already established that a solar sail achieves a larger 9.15 x 10-6 Newtons of thrust from a smaller 1.37-kw power source (i.e. the sun at 1 AU).
That is not just photons though, right?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/03/2012 10:23 pm

The Chinese paper gives a direction for how the EMDrive works (i.e. it is like a solar sail working under the understood principles of radiation pressure), but it does not give specific math of how they come to the 720 mN thrust with a 2.5-kw 2.45-Ghz input.

If you want thrust from radiation pressure, there are much easier ways of doing it.  Just use a light bulb and a parabolic mirror.  The isp from such a photon-rocket "thruster" is enormous.  However, obviously no one uses such a thing, the reason being that the thrust is too small.  It's better to add a small amount of reaction mass and use something like an ion drive.


What is the performance in terms of thrust in Newtons versus power input in kw for your easier "light bulb and parabolic mirror" thruster? The Isp is theoretically infinite for these propellantless thrusters so Isp is not the goal for your improvement on the photon-rocket.

What are you comparing this "too small" thrust to? An ion drive engine at 5,000-sec Isp would have 10 times less thrust for the same power input as the EMDrive, so what ion drive are you basing your comment on?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/03/2012 10:26 pm
Quote
t is already established that a solar sail achieves a larger 9.15 x 10-6 Newtons of thrust from a smaller 1.37-kw power source (i.e. the sun at 1 AU).
That is not just photons though, right?

Not right.

That is just radiation pressure from photons which should not be confused with the seperate solar wind of charged particles.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 12/03/2012 10:32 pm
How did you calculate your 8.3 x 10-6 Newtons of thrust from a 2.5-kw power source? It is already established that a solar sail achieves a larger 9.15 x 10-6 Newtons of thrust from a smaller 1.37-kw power source (i.e. the sun at 1 AU).

photons reflect off surfaces at twice the radiation pressure that they are absorbed by surfaces

This is because the incoming and outgoing momenta are equal and opposite.  With absorption - or radiation - you only have one or the other.

(9.14/2)*2.5/1.37 = 8.34

Quote
What or where is this "equal and opposite force somewhere else in the power system" that balances the other EMDrive forces and prevents the EMDrive from working?

It's not a question of "preventing the EMDrive from working".  Conservation of momentum must be satisfied.  If the source of the thrust is ordinary electromagnetism (which I'm not claiming), then the reaction is most likely electromagnetic, and while it could be interacting with Earth's magnetic field or an unrelated piece of lab equipment someone forgot to turn off, another possible explanation is that the circuit is producing some sort of inductive effect, or perhaps a charge separation - some sort of electromagnetic effect internal to the integrated test setup, which would naturally sum to zero over the whole apparatus.

I don't know what the source of the thrust is.  We don't have enough information yet.

What are you comparing this "too small" thrust to? An ion drive engine at 5,000-sec Isp would have 10 times less thrust for the same power input as the EMDrive, so what ion drive are you basing your comment on?

Yes, but we don't know the EM-Drive works yet.  He's comparing the ion drive to a conventional photon drive, which has a power-to-thrust ratio of 299792458 W/N.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 12/03/2012 10:35 pm
Quote
Not right.

That is just radiation pressure from photons which should not be confused with the seperate solar wind of charged particles.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 12/03/2012 10:36 pm
The Isp is theoretically infinite for these propellantless thrusters

No it isn't.

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/03/2012 10:43 pm
The Isp is theoretically infinite for these propellantless thrusters

No it isn't.



Thank you.

What is the Isp and how do you calculate it for a photon thruster using radiation pressure?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 12/03/2012 10:50 pm
Power-to-thrust is 299792458 W/N, as I mentioned above.  This means that if you generate the power internally, you need to convert (assuming 100% efficiency) 3.33564095e-9 kg into energy and expel it for every N·s of impulse you get from your drive.

In other words, the specific impulse is 299792458 N·s/kg, or 30570323 seconds.

If you use solar power, on the other hand, the Isp really is infinite...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 12/03/2012 10:53 pm
isp is just a peculiar way of measuring thrust per unit of energy. Saying isp is infinite, even for an externally powered thruster, gives the wrong impression.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 12/03/2012 10:56 pm
It also has to do (primarily, even, it could be argued) with how much delta-V you can get out of your thruster before you run out of propellant.  That's why it's in units of impulse per unit mass (ie: "specific impulse").  If all of your propellant is externally supplied, you can keep thrusting until you either break down or exit the region where the propellant supply is available.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 12/03/2012 10:59 pm
Quote
Maybe I do not understand your statement, but isn't that obvious?

The EMDrive will only have thrust when there is external power being supplied to it from solar panels or a nuclear reactor or some other source of electricity.


No, I meant a powersource that is not in the same reference frame as the EM drive (e.g. attached to it). From what I understand all current experiments were run with the power supply not beig moved with the drive itself.

IIUC, the EM Drive is claimed to reduce in efficiency as it speeds up. Don't understand how that is compatible with Relativity.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/03/2012 11:09 pm
How did you calculate your 8.3 x 10-6 Newtons of thrust from a 2.5-kw power source? It is already established that a solar sail achieves a larger 9.15 x 10-6 Newtons of thrust from a smaller 1.37-kw power source (i.e. the sun at 1 AU).

photons reflect off surfaces at twice the radiation pressure that they are absorbed by surfaces

This is because the incoming and outgoing momenta are equal and opposite.  With absorption - or radiation - you only have one or the other.

(9.14/2)*2.5/1.37 = 8.34

Quote
What or where is this "equal and opposite force somewhere else in the power system" that balances the other EMDrive forces and prevents the EMDrive from working?

It's not a question of "preventing the EMDrive from working".  Conservation of momentum must be satisfied.  If the source of the thrust is ordinary electromagnetism (which I'm not claiming), then the reaction is most likely electromagnetic, and while it could be interacting with Earth's magnetic field or an unrelated piece of lab equipment someone forgot to turn off, another possible explanation is that the circuit is producing some sort of inductive effect, or perhaps a charge separation - some sort of electromagnetic effect internal to the integrated test setup, which would naturally sum to zero over the whole apparatus.

I don't know what the source of the thrust is.  We don't have enough information yet.

What are you comparing this "too small" thrust to? An ion drive engine at 5,000-sec Isp would have 10 times less thrust for the same power input as the EMDrive, so what ion drive are you basing your comment on?

Yes, but we don't know the EM-Drive works yet.  He's comparing the ion drive to a conventional photon drive, which has a power-to-thrust ratio of 299792458 W/N.

In your equation of (9.14/2)*2.5/1.37 = 8.34 you are combining the 1.37-kw propulsive source of the solar sail being propulsed by radiation pressure from the sun at 1 AU and the radiation pressure from a 2.5-kw power source located 6 centimeters away from the intended surface. That does not make sense.

Radiation pressure on a surface area is related to 1/3 of the radiant energy by unit volume within a space. The unit volume of a 6-cm microwave cavity is orders of magnitude smaller than the unit volume of energy coming from the sun.

Maybe I should re-ask my question in a different way.....What is the radiation pressure in Newtons/m2 on a surface within a microwave oven at a 2.5-kw power setting?

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 12/03/2012 11:11 pm
Radiation pressure is a surface effect, not a volume effect.

That calculation is not how I got my number originally; it just shows that it's consistent with yours.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/03/2012 11:13 pm
Quote
Maybe I do not understand your statement, but isn't that obvious?

The EMDrive will only have thrust when there is external power being supplied to it from solar panels or a nuclear reactor or some other source of electricity.


No, I meant a powersource that is not in the same reference frame as the EM drive (e.g. attached to it). From what I understand all current experiments were run with the power supply not beig moved with the drive itself.

IIUC, the EM Drive is claimed to reduce in efficiency as it speeds up. Don't understand how that is compatible with Relativity.

cheers, Martin

I think that the Chinese paper steered away from that assertion. The Chinese paper seemed to have a tone that suggested that the original founder of the EMDrive did not understand what he was doing when he started this in 2001.

I am not being negative on the founder of the EMDrive, but it appears that we should start with the recent Chinese paper to analyze what makes sense and what does not.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/03/2012 11:15 pm
Power-to-thrust is 299792458 W/N, as I mentioned above.  This means that if you generate the power internally, you need to convert (assuming 100% efficiency) 3.33564095e-9 kg into energy and expel it for every N·s of impulse you get from your drive.

In other words, the specific impulse is 299792458 N·s/kg, or 30570323 seconds.

If you use solar power, on the other hand, the Isp really is infinite...

Thank you.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/03/2012 11:16 pm
isp is just a peculiar way of measuring thrust per unit of energy. Saying isp is infinite, even for an externally powered thruster, gives the wrong impression.


I agree. Thanks.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/03/2012 11:24 pm
Radiation pressure is a surface effect, not a volume effect.

And did you notice that the calculation completely answers your question?  It's not how I got my number originally; it just shows that it's consistent with yours.

The Wikipedia page on radiation pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure) states that:

"It may be shown by electromagnetic theory, by quantum theory, or by thermodynamics, making no assumptions as to the nature of the radiation, that the pressure against a surface exposed in a space traversed by radiation uniformly in all directions is equal to one third of the total radiant energy per unit volume within that space."

Radiation pressure is a surface effect that is driven by the radiant energy per unit volume within that space. The microwave cavity is a high Q (i.e. low losses) space with a very small unit volume that does not let the radio waves escape as you add more waves/energy.

I do not think that your calculation answered my question.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 12/03/2012 11:49 pm
Your question had nothing to do with a resonant cavity.  You asked how my value for a flashlight drive was consistent with your value for a solar sail.  I pointed out that the 2x difference between reflection and generation explained the discrepancy.

This assumes that the radiation is unidirectional (which is pretty realistic in both cases but inconsistent with the scenario described by the Wiki page), and that the solar sail is facing the sun straight on, which gives maximum thrust.

Besides, your talk of 1 AU vs. 6 cm seems to imply that you missed the significance of "per unit volume".  All that matters is the radiative intensity, and since we already know that, the volume doesn't matter.

Kilowatts per square metre are not a volumetric quantity; how far away the radiation came from is entirely irrelevant.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 12/03/2012 11:52 pm

The Chinese paper gives a direction for how the EMDrive works (i.e. it is like a solar sail working under the understood principles of radiation pressure), but it does not give specific math of how they come to the 720 mN thrust with a 2.5-kw 2.45-Ghz input.

If you want thrust from radiation pressure, there are much easier ways of doing it.  Just use a light bulb and a parabolic mirror.  The isp from such a photon-rocket "thruster" is enormous.  However, obviously no one uses such a thing, the reason being that the thrust is too small.  It's better to add a small amount of reaction mass and use something like an ion drive.


What is the performance in terms of thrust in Newtons versus power input in kw for your easier "light bulb and parabolic mirror" thruster? The Isp is theoretically infinite for these propellantless thrusters so Isp is not the goal for your improvement on the photon-rocket.

What are you comparing this "too small" thrust to? An ion drive engine at 5,000-sec Isp would have 10 times less thrust for the same power input as the EMDrive, so what ion drive are you basing your comment on?

Assuming perfect collimation a photon rocket spends 300MW per Newton of force.  To derive this, you just need dimensional analysis.  Work = Force * velocity, and the relevant velocity here is the speed of light.

The isp is not infinite since E=mc^2.  You are spending energy (and hence rest mass) to power your rocket.  For a photon rocket, the isp in "sensible" units is equal to the speed of light.  Add in a factor of Earth's gravitational acceleration 'g' to convert to seconds.

The EMDrive is getting larger thrust than allowed by physics.  So... either they are lying, or miss-measuring something.  My guess is that they aren't correctly measuring the far field, and thus getting the thrust wrong.

Antimatter-powered photon rockets are the ideal thing for interstellar travel.  However, basically anywhere else they are highly inefficient and you are better off using some reaction mass.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 12/03/2012 11:56 pm
The EMDrive is getting larger thrust than allowed by physics.  So... either they are lying, or miss-measuring something.

Or the operating principle is something in between the cracks in our current understanding of physics.

I do not comment on the likelihood that this is true.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 12/04/2012 12:30 am
The EMDrive is getting larger thrust than allowed by physics.  So... either they are lying, or miss-measuring something.

Or the operating principle is something in between the cracks in our current understanding of physics.

I do not comment on the likelihood that this is true.

Typically new physics appears at the extremes of parameter space.  So much so, that it usually is seen to be useless for applications.  (This is because everything inside the extremes has been well explored beforehand, pretty much by definition.)

Hoping that something as well understood as basic electromagnetism has applications that break the laws of conservation of momentum and energy is just silly.  There has been so many experiments testing that that the probability of someone finding anything new that doesn't conflict with those earlier results is close to zero.  If there is something, then why hasn't someone else noticed it beforehand?  Then you add in Noether's theorem that links momentum and energy conservation to symmetries of the universe, and the probability shrinks even further.  (Time and spacial translation invariance is tested by many more experiments than just electromagnetism.)

On the other hand, if you were investigating something like the properties of the Higgs boson, or gravity in the strong field regime, outlandish or unusual properties wouldn't be so much of a surprise.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 12/04/2012 12:36 am
I don't rule out the possibility that these researchers have constructed a device that defies current understanding of momentum, etc, and that it might actually be practical for some purposes. I just don't have enough information to reproduce it, and there's no good reason for them to have failed to publish that information.

What is that information? The exact dimensions of the cavity, the materials used, and the exact frequency of the microwaves. In short: what's the recipe? Spell it out. Neither group has done that and yet both groups are claiming success. How are we supposed to know they're even seeing the same phenomena?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/04/2012 12:40 am
Your question had nothing to do with a resonant cavity.  You asked how my value for a flashlight drive was consistent with your value for a solar sail.  I pointed out that the 2x difference between reflection and generation explained the discrepancy.

This assumes that the radiation is unidirectional (which is pretty realistic in both cases but inconsistent with the scenario described by the Wiki page), and that the solar sail is facing the sun straight on, which gives maximum thrust.

Besides, your talk of 1 AU vs. 6 cm seems to imply that you missed the significance of "per unit volume".  All that matters is the radiative intensity, and since we already know that, the volume doesn't matter.

Kilowatts per square metre are not a volumetric quantity; how far away the radiation came from is entirely irrelevant.

I do not remember asking for the value of a flashlight drive.

If you have 1.37-kw applied a meter away from a surface versus 2.5-kw applied 6-cm away from a surface then there should be a significant difference in pressure on that surface. I think that I understand your point, however.

Let me ask a different question. Is there an advantage to restricting the energy flux within the tiny volume of a microwave cavity versus the energy flux of the sun on a solar sail not being restricted (except for the restriction provided by the solar sail)?

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 12/04/2012 12:45 am
Hoping that something as well understood as basic electromagnetism has applications that break the laws of conservation of momentum and energy

Who said anything about breaking conservation?  M-E doesn't.  If the EM-Drive works (which I am not claiming), whatever makes it work can be assumed to also not break conservation unless very good evidence shows up that it does.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 12/04/2012 12:58 am
Hoping that something as well understood as basic electromagnetism has applications that break the laws of conservation of momentum and energy

Who said anything about breaking conservation?  M-E doesn't.  If the EM-Drive works (which I am not claiming), whatever makes it work can be assumed to also not break conservation unless very good evidence shows up that it does.

M-E does.  Its math depends on a vector theory of gravity.  The reason everyone else uses the more complex tensor theory known as GR is because vector theories break energy-momentum conservation.

If EM-Drive works at the efficiency claimed, then it also needs to break momentum conservation.  A photon rocket is the best you can do isp-wise with a thruster-like setup.

Solar sails, plasma bubbles pushed by the solar wind, tethers etc. are propellentless propulsion techniques that don't break the laws of physics...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 12/04/2012 01:01 am
I do not remember asking for the value of a flashlight drive.

Right here (sort of):

I do know that the maximum thrust achievable by radiation pressure at 2.5 kW is 8.3 micronewtons.
How did you calculate your 8.3 x 10-6 Newtons of thrust from a 2.5-kw power source? It is already established that a solar sail achieves a larger 9.15 x 10-6 Newtons of thrust from a smaller 1.37-kw power source (i.e. the sun at 1 AU).

Now, it seems I wasn't entirely clear what I meant by "radiation pressure".  So let me rectify that:  I was referring to the use of a directed radiation source as a thruster.  If you don't carry the radiation source with you, the available thrust doubles - if you can maintain the total power impinging on your vehicle, which is possible in principle if the source is unidirectional.  The sun's light is roughly unidirectional over planetary distances, but over interplanetary or interstellar distances obviously it is not.

Quote
If you have 1.37-kw applied a meter away from a surface versus 2.5-kw applied 6-cm away from a surface then there should be a significant difference in pressure on that surface.

The sun is not 1.37 kW.

Solar radiation is 1.36 kW/m˛ at 1 AU.  So if you have a solar sail of area 0.919 m˛, your impinging radiation power is 1.25 kW, which due to the reflection doubling is equivalent in thrust to a 2.5 kW unidirectional light source on the vehicle.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/04/2012 01:12 am
I don't rule out the possibility that these researchers have constructed a device that defies current understanding of momentum, etc, and that it might actually be practical for some purposes. I just don't have enough information to reproduce it, and there's no good reason for them to have failed to publish that information.

What is that information? The exact dimensions of the cavity, the materials used, and the exact frequency of the microwaves. In short: what's the recipe? Spell it out. Neither group has done that and yet both groups are claiming success. How are we supposed to know they're even seeing the same phenomena?


I am reading a NASA funded paper right now that might have some of the recipe for this type of photon thruster. I am trying to see if it is flaky before posting it.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 12/04/2012 01:24 am
I don't rule out the possibility that these researchers have constructed a device that defies current understanding of momentum, etc, and that it might actually be practical for some purposes. I just don't have enough information to reproduce it, and there's no good reason for them to have failed to publish that information.

What is that information? The exact dimensions of the cavity, the materials used, and the exact frequency of the microwaves. In short: what's the recipe? Spell it out. Neither group has done that and yet both groups are claiming success. How are we supposed to know they're even seeing the same phenomena?


I am reading a NASA funded paper right now that might have some of the recipe for this type of photon thruster. I am trying to see if it is flaky before posting it.

I was talking about EM-Drive, but okay.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cuddihy on 12/07/2012 05:59 pm
Quote

Who said anything about breaking conservation?  M-E doesn't.  If the EM-Drive works (which I am not claiming), whatever makes it work can be assumed to also not break conservation unless very good evidence shows up that it does.

M-E does.  Its math depends on a vector theory of gravity.  The reason everyone else uses the more complex tensor theory known as GR is because vector theories break energy-momentum conservation.


gross generalization. Tensor theory =/= GR.

Newtonian theories are all kinds of inconsistent. That doesn't invalidate every calculation or derivation done in Newtonian calculus either. Tensor theories are shown to not work with certain parts of quantum physics. That doesn't invalidate tensor GR math either.

What specific part of Woodward's derivation are you alleging cannot be calculated in vector form and why?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sfuerst on 12/08/2012 12:05 am
Quote

Who said anything about breaking conservation?  M-E doesn't.  If the EM-Drive works (which I am not claiming), whatever makes it work can be assumed to also not break conservation unless very good evidence shows up that it does.

M-E does.  Its math depends on a vector theory of gravity.  The reason everyone else uses the more complex tensor theory known as GR is because vector theories break energy-momentum conservation.


gross generalization. Tensor theory =/= GR.

Newtonian theories are all kinds of inconsistent. That doesn't invalidate every calculation or derivation done in Newtonian calculus either. Tensor theories are shown to not work with certain parts of quantum physics. That doesn't invalidate tensor GR math either.

What specific part of Woodward's derivation are you alleging cannot be calculated in vector form and why?


The Woodward derivation requires the existence of a mass-energy dipole.  This is possible with a vector theory (which is what they use).  With a tensor theory, like GR, it is impossible.  The lowest multipole order is a quadrapole.  This matters because the emitted power from a quadrapole is much much less than a dipole by many orders of magnitude due to the additional G/c^2 factor.

So why don't other physicists use vector gravity theories?  The reason is that they don't conserve energy-momentum.  In effect Woodward is assuming that momentum is not conserved, constructing a device, and then noticing that that device doesn't conserve momentum.  It is the physics version of "begging the question".

This particular problem is exercise 7.2 in MTW Gravitation.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Afrocle on 12/12/2012 11:09 pm
I don't rule out the possibility that these researchers have constructed a device that defies current understanding of momentum, etc, and that it might actually be practical for some purposes. I just don't have enough information to reproduce it, and there's no good reason for them to have failed to publish that information.

What is that information? The exact dimensions of the cavity, the materials used, and the exact frequency of the microwaves. In short: what's the recipe? Spell it out. Neither group has done that and yet both groups are claiming success. How are we supposed to know they're even seeing the same phenomena?


I am reading a NASA funded paper right now that might have some of the recipe for this type of photon thruster. I am trying to see if it is flaky before posting it.

I was talking about EM-Drive, but okay.


Attached is a paper on the propellantless Photonic Laser Thruster (PLT) by Dr. Bae who was funded by NASA and others for his experiments and research.

The PLT claims 3,000 times thrust amplification in experimental results by "recycling" photons in an active optical cavity. This means that a 1 kilowatt laser would bounce photons around this optical cavity to amplify the laser to 3 Megawatts and a theoretical maximum of 20 milliNewtons of thrust. This is compared to 4.6 microNewtons of thrust from photons at 1.37-kw for a solar sail which could be ~ 13.8 milliNewtons if thrust were amplified 3,000-times like in the optical cavity of the PLT.

This PLT paper may explain the relativistic thrust amplification theories for photons for the EM-Drive using a microwave cavity. This paper mentions that thrust amplification for other than photons (i.e. protons and electrons) is harder, because of relativity.

This PLT paper does not violate conservation of energy and momentum as the EM-Drive supposedly does, because the optical cavity is formed across 2 spacecraft that both move when PLT is in operation. This PLT paper operates under the assumption that the EM-Drive can not work, but I have no personal opinion on this.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/13/2012 01:33 pm
Found this recent paper this morning, outlining a different approach to an experimental setup for measuring the Mach effect.  From the conclusion:

Quote
The purpose of this paper was to bring to attention an alternate method to investigate the existence of Mach effects postulated by Woodward. It has been shown how a particular class of materials (ferromagnetic materials) subjected to a pulsed non uniform magnetic field should acquire a final speed which is higher when compared to the same classically computed, this anomaly being produced by said Mach effects. The mechanism that should originate this anomaly has been explained by the interplay between the force applied to the active mass and its mass fluctuation: of particular relevance is the fact that, during the pulse, the force is at its maximum when the mass fluctuation reaches its maximum negative value. The general description of a possible setup to test the existence of Mach effects has been proposed. A setup that not only could be useful in investigating the reality of Mach effects, but that can also serve as starting point for the development of a new kind of propulsion system. As a final note, a study to determine the origin and the magnitude of the 1 and the 2 factors is highly desirable and recommended.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 12/15/2012 08:09 am
Found this recent paper this morning, outlining a different approach to an experimental setup for measuring the Mach effect.  From the conclusion:

Quote
The purpose of this paper was to bring to attention an alternate method to investigate the existence of Mach effects postulated by Woodward. It has been shown how a particular class of materials (ferromagnetic materials) subjected to a pulsed non uniform magnetic field should acquire a final speed which is higher when compared to the same classically computed, this anomaly being produced by said Mach effects. The mechanism that should originate this anomaly has been explained by the interplay between the force applied to the active mass and its mass fluctuation: of particular relevance is the fact that, during the pulse, the force is at its maximum when the mass fluctuation reaches its maximum negative value. The general description of a possible setup to test the existence of Mach effects has been proposed. A setup that not only could be useful in investigating the reality of Mach effects, but that can also serve as starting point for the development of a new kind of propulsion system. As a final note, a study to determine the origin and the magnitude of the 1 and the 2 factors is highly desirable and recommended.

So the paper is claiming that replacing mechanically-induced displacement oscillation with magnetically-induced displacement oscillation will provide a better chance of detecting whether mass fluctuations are happening?

It sounds like he's saying that this is because of the lesser coupling of a ferromagnetic field in comparison to direct mechanical contact. So what you're losing in coupling you're gaining through reduction in "noise"? And therefore this is a useful tradeoff, since you don't care so much about coupling, and care more about noise reduction to improve your "signal"?

Can anybody correct me if my interpretation of his writings is wrong?

See, this is why I was thinking that nanotubes could be the ultimate Mach-Woodward oscillator, because they're both mechanical (high coupling) and also highly directional with less noise. Furthermore it could be possible to change their length through application of charge, which would cause a quantum-mechanical change in the length of their constituent bonds, similar to a piezo-oscillator. Nanotubes are well known for their great mechanical oscillation characteristics.

CNT piezoelectric properties have only been investigated for nano-power generation or as strain resistors, but why not for Mach-Woodward too?

Hey, is Paul March around? What do you think of that, Paul?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 12/15/2012 08:12 am
So the paper is claiming that replacing mechanically-induced displacement oscillation with magnetically-induced displacement oscillation will provide a better chance of detecting whether mass fluctuations are happening?

It sounds like he's saying that this is because of the lesser coupling of a ferromagnetic field in comparison to direct mechanical contact. So what you're losing in coupling you're gaining through reduction in "noise"? And therefore this is a useful tradeoff, since you don't care so much about coupling, and care more about noise reduction to improve your "signal"?

Can anybody correct me if my interpretation of his writings is wrong?

That's what I got out of it.. also, you can say "magnets, how the *#!% do they work?!" when you're done.


Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/15/2012 01:46 pm
Magnetism.  I don't get it either.  What is it about that particular combination of electrons and protons that makes iron magnetic, but not argon, say?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 12/15/2012 08:39 pm
How about jumping beyond regular ferromagnetism, and going for the premium stuff - superconductive magnetism? No resistance/heating losses during current oscillation, and plus your magnetic field is going to be more pristine and perfect, to further reduce "noise".

Also, here are the graphs from p.79 of the PDF, showing all the parameters lined up vs time. Note the red curves on the bottom graphs, showing the enhanced effect with magnetism vs plain old mechanical force.
 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: simonbp on 12/16/2012 05:46 am
Magnetism.  I don't get it either.  What is it about that particular combination of electrons and protons that makes iron magnetic, but not argon, say?

Spins. A material gets magnetised when an external magnetic field aligns the spin directions of the material's electrons to the field. Then, when the external field goes away, the alignment of the spins preserves the field. Many material, like rock, need to be hot for this alignment to occur, but iron's valance electrons can align themselves very easily. Neutral argon has two strokes against it. As a noble gas, its valance shell is filled, so it's not as easy to align. Plus, if it's in gaseous state, the atoms are all aligned randomly from bumping off of each other. A solid chunk of frozen Argon subjected to an extremely strong magnetic field could, theoretically, become magnetised.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 12/16/2012 07:15 am
Magnetism.  I don't get it either.  What is it about that particular combination of electrons and protons that makes iron magnetic, but not argon, say?

Spins. A material gets magnetised when an external magnetic field aligns the spin directions of the material's electrons to the field. Then, when the external field goes away, the alignment of the spins preserves the field. Many material, like rock, need to be hot for this alignment to occur, but iron's valance electrons can align themselves very easily. Neutral argon has two strokes against it. As a noble gas, its valance shell is filled, so it's not as easy to align. Plus, if it's in gaseous state, the atoms are all aligned randomly from bumping off of each other. A solid chunk of frozen Argon subjected to an extremely strong magnetic field could, theoretically, become magnetised.

And yet why does the collective alignment of electron spins generate a field across a wider region of space? We obviously see that it does - but why??

To me, it infers that there is something existing across that wider region of space which possesses similar properties to the electrons whose spins are aligned, and which is taking on similar properties by extension.

We say that photons are the force carriers for electromagnetic force, but nobody would say that a simple ferromagnet is generating photons. Nobody would compare a solenoid switch or a levitating magnet to a photon rocket. Instead we talk about the electromagnetic force carrier photons as being "virtual photons".

By the same token, we know that space is also filled with other virtual particles, like virtual electrons. It seems to me that the virtual electrons inhabiting empty space are capable of taking on spin characteristics from the collectively aligned spin states of electrons in a magnet. This whole "photon" thing is just a word/construct we've made up to say that bits of state properties are being passed on across empty space.

I don't like all these myriad identities for the photon. It's become our gofer particle. It's almost just a bookkeeping term.

How many photons does it take to screw a lightbulb?

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 12/16/2012 03:16 pm
Quote from: SimonBP
iron's valance electrons can align themselves very easily

Well, thanks for that info. 

Taking a googol on ruthenium and osmium reveals that they also have some magnetic affinities.  Do the Type VIII elements share this valence electron ease of spin alignment?  How come stainless steel isn't magnetic?  It's the universe's way of keeping kid art off of refrigerators?

Quote from: Sanman
And yet why does the collective alignment of electron spins generate a field across a wider region of space? We obviously see that it does - but why??

To me, it infers that there is something existing across that wider region of space which possesses similar properties to the electrons whose spins are aligned, and which is taking on similar properties by extension.

We say that photons are the force carriers for electromagnetic force, but nobody would say that a simple ferromagnet is generating photons.

I keep wondering is there is in fact, an "aether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_views_on_the_aether#Einstein.27s_views_on_the_aether)".

From the oracle:

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

Quote
The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo. ...

Starkman's team has reproduced Bekenstein's results using just one field - the new ether...[the article includes a dead arxiv link]

The many failures of Standard Model General Relativistic Cosmology (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.1697.pdf)

What's an armchair scientist to think?

Quote from: Sanman
How many photons does it take to screw a lightbulb?

Oh no.  Something else to keep me awake at night.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Sith on 12/20/2012 09:30 am
How can I get a job in this field? I finished my Electrical Engineering bachelor in Europe, I'm now in Germany, EU and I wanna move to US to fulfill my dreams. Is it possible that something can be done? Don't tell me it's impossible, pls...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 12/20/2012 10:06 pm
How can I get a job in this field? I finished my Electrical Engineering bachelor in Europe, I'm now in Germany, EU and I wanna move to US to fulfill my dreams. Is it possible that something can be done? Don't tell me it's impossible, pls...

Hi, which field are you hoping to get a job in? You mean a job in Propellantless Propulsion Research? Maybe what you need is an academic research job, funded by a research grant. It seems like the field of Propellantless Propulsion is purely a research topic if anything, and there are no real industry-style jobs available, since no industry exists for something that's only a theoretical concept under investigation.

Even if there aren't many takers for this Mach-Woodward idea, I still think there needs to at least be a rigorous attempt at disproof, to debunk it once and for all. For instance, awhile back some guy claimed he'd used Hafnium isotope from an old dental X-ray machine to store and release X-ray energy, as a sort of high-energy density material. There was a lot of skepticism from mainstream scientists at these claims, but because of the potential importance for military applications and its high stakes, an experimental project was conducted at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories just to make sure of what was true and what wasn't. They of course found that the claims weren't true or practical.

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

So that's an example of conducting legitimate research to debunk something, and to remove nagging doubts. Likewise, one could arguably make the same case that it would be useful to do the same here on Mach-Woodward Propulsion. I don't know if it works or doesn't work, but I think it would be worth carrying out a robust investigation to really find out once and for all, to remove any nagging doubts. Even if such an investigation amounted to a disproof, it would still be worth it. At least then people can move on, instead of harboring false hopes.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: KelvinZero on 12/21/2012 06:33 am
How can I get a job in this field? I finished my Electrical Engineering bachelor in Europe, I'm now in Germany, EU and I wanna move to US to fulfill my dreams. Is it possible that something can be done? Don't tell me it's impossible, pls...

The field itself doesn't really exist, at least in the sense of having jobs. This doesn't seem to stop people working on it :)

Perhaps you can find a day job that hones the skills you feel are relevant, and is interesting in its own right.

Btw, anyone know what sort of skill set is required for any of the roles working on existing electric propulsion devices, eg VASIMR? Im sure some are highly theoretical, but it can't all be. That would seem like a pretty good role to me!

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 12/21/2012 05:22 pm
Put it this way - you can't get a job in this field until somebody gets a field from this job!  ;)

(ie. there won't be any employable activity in this field until somebody who's working on it actually achieves some kind of field-induced propulsion effect)  ;D
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 2552 on 02/03/2013 12:08 pm
New on Arxiv from Heidi Fearn and James F. Woodward: Experimental Null test of a Mach Effect Thruster (http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6178)

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: sanman on 02/04/2013 12:08 am
New on Arxiv from Heidi Fearn and James F. Woodward: Experimental Null test of a Mach Effect Thruster (http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6178)

Heheh, isn't this like the Jumo opposed piston engine that was originally used by Luftwaffe Junkers aircraft? I'd read that design is being brought back for fuel economy purposes.

Quote
We show how to obtain thrust using a heavy reaction mass at one end of our capacitor stack and a lighter end cap on the other. Then we show how this thrust can be eliminated by having two heavy masses at either end of the stack with a central mounting bracket. We show the same capacitor stack being used as a thruster and then eliminate the thrust by arranging equal brass masses on either end, so that essentially the capacitor stack is trying to push in both directions at once. This arrangement in theory would only allow for a small oscillation but no net thrust. We find the thrust does indeed disappear in the experiment, as predicted.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: antiquark on 02/04/2013 03:04 pm
New on Arxiv from Heidi Fearn and James F. Woodward: Experimental Null test of a Mach Effect Thruster (http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6178)

The thrust was in the micronewton range... i.e., the weight of a single grain of salt! So it's highly probable that the thrust was due to convection currents, or even the earth's magnetic field, rather than a new form of physics.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 02/04/2013 10:21 pm
So it's highly probable that the thrust was due to convection currents, or even the earth's magnetic field, rather than a new form of physics.

Last I checked, Woodward was using a vacuum chamber for all his tests, and previous work has shown reproducible thrust reversal.  There has been a lot of work to eliminate sources of error; you are unlikely to come up with a new one off the top of your head.

Besides which, the Mach effect isn't a new form of physics.  It's supposedly implicit in general relativity; it's just that few people have noticed because they're all obsessed with string theory.

I'm not saying he's definitely on to something, but as far as I can tell he may well be.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: grondilu on 02/04/2013 11:09 pm
So it's highly probable that the thrust was due to convection currents, or even the earth's magnetic field, rather than a new form of physics.

Last I checked, Woodward was using a vacuum chamber for all his tests, and previous work has shown reproducible thrust reversal.  There has been a lot of work to eliminate sources of error; you are unlikely to come up with a new one off the top of your head.

Definitely something worth checking out.  The Mach principle is one of the most interesting principles I know in physics.  I'm glad it could bring such an original and potentially revolutionary technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/05/2013 03:39 am
New on Arxiv from Heidi Fearn and James F. Woodward: Experimental Null test of a Mach Effect Thruster (http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6178)

The thrust was in the micronewton range... i.e., the weight of a single grain of salt! So it's highly probable that the thrust was due to convection currents, or even the earth's magnetic field, rather than a new form of physics.

F = m a
v = u + a t

giving t = (v - u) m / F
To increase the speed of a 1 kg satellite by 1 m/s using 1E-6 N takes
(1 - 0) 1 / 1E-6 = 1,000,000 seconds (11.57 days)

If they can get the size and weight down this is viable for the station keeping of cubesats.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: grondilu on 02/05/2013 11:24 pm
I'm trying to understand Woodward's theory and I have trouble following a few equations.  Could I discuss them here or should I open a thread?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 02/06/2013 12:07 am
I'm trying to understand Woodward's theory and I have trouble following a few equations.  Could I discuss them here or should I open a thread?

A new thread really couldn't hurt.. this one is loooong.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JasonAW3 on 02/08/2013 09:29 pm
     I hate to say this, but it appears to me that what is happening is that microwaves are being bounced around in the chamber, being a tunnacated cone, the microwaves would tend to produce the most 'force' on the larger end of the tunacated cone chamber, as that is essentially where they are eventually directed by the sloped sides of the chamber.

     While initially the 'force' of the electrons bouncing around in the cavatron would have an equal outward 'pressure', the sloped sides tend to redirect that 'pressure to the larger end of the cavatron.  At this point, the electrons are imparting part of their kenetic energy to the top of the cavatron and part is likely converting to heat.

     As every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the cavatron would tend to move in the direction of the strongest concentration of electrons (Or in this case, microwaves).

     If this is the case, then a stronger level of microwaves should be emitting from the larger end of the cavatron than from the side or the bottom, (Actually, the side should have less emissions than the bottom as well).  Should be able to tell with an RF meter is this is indeed happening.

     This isn't 'new physics' but simply a different way of converting one form of energy into another.  ie Basic Thermodynamics.

     (Mind you I think that the effect discussed here may be vastly overstated, but there's no reason why there shouldn't be some sort of impartation of kenitic effects on teh cavatron).

Just a thought...

Jason   
 
 
 
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 02/09/2013 06:53 am
Just a note - you're describing Shawyer's EM-Drive specifically.  Woodward's M-E drive is a completely different animal...
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/09/2013 03:49 pm
...If this is the case, then a stronger level of microwaves should be emitting from the larger end of the cavatron than from the side or the bottom...

That is not the case, however.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JasonAW3 on 02/11/2013 05:49 pm
Just a note - you're describing Shawyer's EM-Drive specifically.  Woodward's M-E drive is a completely different animal...

Wait, I thought ths WAS the thread about the Shawyer's EM drive!

     Don't tell me I got the wrong thread AGAIN?

     Ok, what IS the thread on Shawyer's EM drive then?

     Tried to find it but seem to have missed it completely.

Jason
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: 93143 on 02/12/2013 12:46 am
This is a general propellantless field propulsion thread.  Shawyer's drive probably qualifies if it works (the general consensus seems to be that if it does work, it will be for reasons other than those stated by Shawyer).  Apparently White's QVF hypothesis predicts thrust from an EM-Drive, but Woodward's M-E derivation does not.

I don't think we have a thread about the EM-Drive specifically.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Xpl0rer on 03/24/2013 10:51 am
Hello,

there's a thought experiment concerning propulsion I'd like to present. Imagine two objects with different mass in free space, being apart 1ly. They are connected by an ideal rope of negligible mass. As is known, space is expanding at a rate of about (21.25km/s)/Mly or (2.125cm/s)/ly. Since the amount of space between the objects is increasing and the rope prevents the objects from moving apart, they experience a net diametral force, each pulling on the other object.

Is my assumption correct, that the object with more mass pulls stronger on the object with less mass (since both objects are being moved with their local space-time section) and thus the less mass-rich object moves away from a nearby free observer? Wouldn't this also be a propellantless propulsion, or am I missing something?

Best regards
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: QuantumG on 03/24/2013 10:58 am
Welcome to the forum. Great question!
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Xpl0rer on 03/24/2013 11:26 am
Thanks, QuantumG :) .

I'd like to expand on that thought experiment and change it slightly. Imagine the two objects being identical viewing platforms. Two astronauts of equal mass are placed on them, their heads facing towards each other. Since there is a constant spacial displacement going on, the astronauts are being "pushed" against their respective viewing platforms. I think this should have the same effect as gravity would have for them, as long as they are standing on the platforms which are connected via the aforementioned rope. What do you think?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 03/24/2013 11:33 am
Hello,

there's a thought experiment concerning propulsion I'd like to present. Imagine two objects with different mass in free space, being apart 1ly. They are connected by an ideal rope of negligible mass. As is known, space is expanding at a rate of about (21.25km/s)/Mly or (2.125cm/s)/ly. Since the amount of space between the objects is increasing and the rope prevents the objects from moving apart, they experience a net diametral force, each pulling on the other object.

Is my assumption correct, that the object with more mass pulls stronger on the object with less mass (since both objects are being moved with their local space-time section) and thus the less mass-rich object moves away from a nearby free observer? Wouldn't this also be a propellantless propulsion, or am I missing something?

Best regards

It's my understanding that the expansion only happens between galaxies, and that the gravitational fields of the mass within galaxies stop them from expanding. This makes sense, as otherwise the galaxies would be getting more diffuse over time, and I believe that's not observed.

So, ISTM your thought experiment would only work in inter-galactic space.

This may also be a "Maxwell's Demon" type system - what provides the force to stop the two masses from moving apart?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Xpl0rer on 03/24/2013 11:46 am

It's my understanding that the expansion only happens between galaxies, and that the gravitational fields of the mass within galaxies stop them from expanding. This makes sense, as otherwise the galaxies would be getting more diffuse over time, and I believe that's not observed.

So, ISTM your thought experiment would only work in inter-galactic space.

This may also be a "Maxwell's Demon" type system - what provides the force to stop the two masses from moving apart?

cheers, Martin

It's the normal EM binding forces within the rope that holds the rope matter together. I know, the thought experiment is a bit.. let's say, "impractical". But in principle, what I described should happen. Do you see something other bothering you besides the immense length of the "ideal rope" ?

Edit:
I did some math regarding the possible diffusion of galaxies. 1ly is ~9.5*10^12km. A galaxy with diameter 1Mly should experience a spacial expansion of ~21.25km/s as viewed from one outer edge to the other. It follows that to expand that galaxy outwards for one additional lightyear, it would take 1ly/(21.25km/s) = ~4.449*10^11s or about 14'108 years. Would this be even measurable with our current means? I mean, how old are the oldest images of distant galaxies (or even our own)? Only a regular comparison and incredible precision measurements could prove or disprove it, IMO. I smell an open issue ;) .

Best regards
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: MP99 on 03/24/2013 01:08 pm

It's my understanding that the expansion only happens between galaxies, and that the gravitational fields of the mass within galaxies stop them from expanding. This makes sense, as otherwise the galaxies would be getting more diffuse over time, and I believe that's not observed.

So, ISTM your thought experiment would only work in inter-galactic space.

This may also be a "Maxwell's Demon" type system - what provides the force to stop the two masses from moving apart?

cheers, Martin

It's the normal EM binding forces within the rope that holds the rope matter together. I know, the thought experiment is a bit.. let's say, "impractical". But in principle, what I described should happen. Do you see something other bothering you besides the immense length of the "ideal rope" ?

What's that rope made of? Perhaps a carbon nanotube fibre?

It will end up incredibly massive, and negate the "negligible mass" part of your thought experiment. Also, what stops the rope / fibre from stretching? I would guess that any stretch impulse would travel down the rope at the speed of sound (in the medium), which is massively slower than light. Alternatively, the stretching of space may stretch the rope itself until it reaches a limit where it refuses to stretch further.

These are the sort of "real world" details which eventually demonstrated the fallacy of Maxwell's Demon.


Also, as I say, I'd read in an old New Scientist article that space only experiences expansion where the rate of expansion is greater than the rate of collapse caused by any local gravitational field.




Edit:
I did some math regarding the possible diffusion of galaxies. 1ly is ~9.5*10^12km. A galaxy with diameter 1Mly should experience a spacial expansion of ~21.25km/s as viewed from one outer edge to the other. It follows that to expand that galaxy outwards for one additional lightyear, it would take 1ly/(21.25km/s) = ~4.449*10^11s or about 14*10^8 years. Would this be even measurable with our current means? I mean, how old are the oldest images of distant galaxies (or even our own)? Only a regular comparison and incredible precision measurements could prove or disprove it, IMO. I smell an open issue ;)

There are images of galaxies going back about 10x your calculated timescale (universe is ~14x10^9 years, and there are images of galaxies within fraction of first billion years).

I can't guess whether the effect would be visible - or not!

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Xpl0rer on 03/24/2013 02:11 pm

What's that rope made of? Perhaps a carbon nanotube fibre?

It will end up incredibly massive, and negate the "negligible mass" part of your thought experiment. Also, what stops the rope / fibre from stretching? I would guess that any stretch impulse would travel down the rope at the speed of sound (in the medium), which is massively slower than light. Alternatively, the stretching of space may stretch the rope itself until it reaches a limit where it refuses to stretch further.

These are the sort of "real world" details which eventually demonstrated the fallacy of Maxwell's Demon.


Also, as I say, I'd read in an old New Scientist article that space only experiences expansion where the rate of expansion is greater than the rate of collapse caused by any local gravitational field.




Edit:
I did some math regarding the possible diffusion of galaxies. 1ly is ~9.5*10^12km. A galaxy with diameter 1Mly should experience a spacial expansion of ~21.25km/s as viewed from one outer edge to the other. It follows that to expand that galaxy outwards for one additional lightyear, it would take 1ly/(21.25km/s) = ~4.449*10^11s or about 14*10^8 years. Would this be even measurable with our current means? I mean, how old are the oldest images of distant galaxies (or even our own)? Only a regular comparison and incredible precision measurements could prove or disprove it, IMO. I smell an open issue ;)

There are images of galaxies going back about 10x your calculated timescale (universe is ~14x10^9 years, and there are images of galaxies within fraction of first billion years).

I can't guess whether the effect would be visible - or not!

cheers, Martin

Hmm.. somehow the 14108 years have become 14*10^8 years in your quotation.. ?

The rope should stretch equally with space-time. You're right that the diametral forces exerted on each end would travel at the speed of sound within the medium. The signal could take a while to reach the respective end of the rope ;) . At a stretch rate of ~2cm/s over the whole length, the elasticity of (possibly) CNT fibre should be OK.

If the expansion between galaxies is effected by the increasing volume of space itself, doesn't that also imply that gravitation could also be viewed not just as an abstract "curvature of space-time", but actually space itself contracting / shrinking in volume? I'd think so because there would be no observable galaxy expansion (which apparently isn't) if the (IMHO always existing) expansion were superimposed with an equally shrinking spacetime. They should cancel out at some point. At some distances gravity effects of "shrinking space-time" would be dominant, and at other distances the "expanding space-time". If that does make any sense :) .

The billion years old images taken of galaxies are only snapshots. The light needed to travel billions of years to reach us and come from a time when those galaxies were (I think) young. What I meant is to take snapshots regularly and then check for diffusing effects. Oh well.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Xpl0rer on 03/24/2013 02:24 pm
There's another question regarding momentum conservation.

Imagine a distant galaxy on the edges of the visible universe. The matter in the galaxy possesses momentum which contributes to the absolute momentum of the visible universe. If space expansion between two points gets greater than the speed of light, then the galaxy finally leaves our personal universal event horizon - and with it its momentum. From our POV, the momentum of the system "universe" seems to change (i.e. part of it is seemingly lost), because space expansion becomes greater than the speed with which information can be transferred (speed of light). One moment we know the "countable" momentum is X, the next moment it becomes X-N.

"What can't be measured, does not exist" (I hope this phrasing is correct). What are the consequences for momentum conservation, going by this example? Are there any?

Cheers,
Xpl0rer
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Soralin on 03/24/2013 05:19 pm

It's my understanding that the expansion only happens between galaxies, and that the gravitational fields of the mass within galaxies stop them from expanding. This makes sense, as otherwise the galaxies would be getting more diffuse over time, and I believe that's not observed.

So, ISTM your thought experiment would only work in inter-galactic space.

This may also be a "Maxwell's Demon" type system - what provides the force to stop the two masses from moving apart?

cheers, Martin

It's the normal EM binding forces within the rope that holds the rope matter together. I know, the thought experiment is a bit.. let's say, "impractical". But in principle, what I described should happen. Do you see something other bothering you besides the immense length of the "ideal rope" ?

Edit:
I did some math regarding the possible diffusion of galaxies. 1ly is ~9.5*10^12km. A galaxy with diameter 1Mly should experience a spacial expansion of ~21.25km/s as viewed from one outer edge to the other. It follows that to expand that galaxy outwards for one additional lightyear, it would take 1ly/(21.25km/s) = ~4.449*10^11s or about 14'108 years. Would this be even measurable with our current means? I mean, how old are the oldest images of distant galaxies (or even our own)? Only a regular comparison and incredible precision measurements could prove or disprove it, IMO. I smell an open issue ;) .

Best regards
Except orbital mechanics doesn't quite work that way.  If you took something in low Earth orbit, and applied a continuous 0.1g acceleration, directly outward away from the planet, then the object wouldn't end up accelerating away from the Earth at all.  That's because it still has a net acceleration toward the planet of approximately 0.9g (a bit less with distance from the planet, but I'm not going to bother calculating that). 

All that will happen from the perspective of the spacecraft, is that it will appear that the Earth is a bit less massive then it was before, the effective gravitational pull will be slightly less, and so it'll move into a bit larger elliptical orbit, that crosses the point where the force was first applied.  And then it will stay in that same orbit indefinitely while the force is still being applied, it won't constantly move further out.  And if the force is turned off, it will move into a new orbit, if it is turned off at the same point in it's orbit that it was turned on in the first place, it will return to it's original orbit.

Just the same as satellites in a circular low Earth orbit don't get closer to the ground, even though they have a 1g (or somewhat less) acceleration towards the planet constantly applied to them.

If you want to move away from an object, you don't thrust away from it, you thrust in your direction of motion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit

Which is why these effects are said to mainly apply on scales larger than clusters of galaxies.  Because smaller scales than that, gravity keeps things together, still orbiting each other.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Xpl0rer on 03/24/2013 05:47 pm
Hello Soralin,

thx for your reply. I'm aware that shifting an object's orbit (normally) requires tangential acceleration. But that is not really what my post is about. Spacial expansion does not physically accelerate objects. It simply "inserts space" between objects, which is a fundamentally different process.

Edit:
I think I got it now. The spacial expansion should produce an orbit that is a tiny bit bigger than what should be expected from an object's velocity. Thx again, Soralin.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 03/24/2013 11:47 pm
Imagine a distant galaxy on the edges of the visible universe. The matter in the galaxy possesses momentum which contributes to the absolute momentum of the visible universe. If space expansion between two points gets greater than the speed of light, then the galaxy finally leaves our personal universal event horizon - and with it its momentum. From our POV, the momentum of the system "universe" seems to change (i.e. part of it is seemingly lost), because space expansion becomes greater than the speed with which information can be transferred (speed of light). One moment we know the "countable" momentum is X, the next moment it becomes X-N.

This is the heart of the scenario I posted a few weeks ago.  We have one universe which started expanding from one big bang.  At first, everything, all mass, was in the same light cone.  Then some of it expanded out of the light cone.  It's as if a significant part of the universe is disappearing with each successive second.

The phrase, "I sense a great disturbance in the force" comes to mind.

Also, where the heck would this boundary be?  There's a star or galaxy on one side of the boundary, which we can no longer see.  But is that boundary also expanding faster than the speed of lite?  Then we could never see the boundary.

So when these theoretical physicists say that the inertia here is caused by mass there, how can that be? There is literally no "there" there; the boundary is receding too fast.  How can that distant mass affect local inertia instantaneously?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Xpl0rer on 03/25/2013 06:44 am
Basically, it comes down to this IMHO:

Imagine a system with well defined boundaries. At time t0 you add up all absolute momentum vector values and get result A. At time t1 you add them up again - and suddenly you get result B that's smaller than A. At time t2 the result gets even smaller etc. It gets especially weird if the sum of momentum vectors within the system does not produce Zero for some time, but something different because of some slight variance of matter distribution within the system so that some vectors get "pushed out" of the system quicker than their counterparts.

I'm getting the impression that momentum conservation within the  comparably tiny systems that we as tiny beings experience is a "fact", whereas in the whole of reality, this seems to be more of a special case (arguing from a system perspective). I'd not be surprised if the proposed field propulsion drives worked.

There are some seemingly crazy implications. If my interpretation is correct, those drives would/could use impulse of distant matter that could even be outside the light cone that defines our system. Hence using impulse we could never ever hope to measure otherwise. Is it just me or does this sound like powering a space drive by "possibility"?  In the vein of "It works because there *could be* .."? ;D

Cheers
Xpl0rer
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/03/2013 05:13 am
There's another question regarding momentum conservation.

Imagine a distant galaxy on the edges of the visible universe. The matter in the galaxy possesses momentum which contributes to the absolute momentum of the visible universe. If space expansion between two points gets greater than the speed of light, then the galaxy finally leaves our personal universal event horizon - and with it its momentum. From our POV, the momentum of the system "universe" seems to change (i.e. part of it is seemingly lost), because space expansion becomes greater than the speed with which information can be transferred (speed of light). One moment we know the "countable" momentum is X, the next moment it becomes X-N.

"What can't be measured, does not exist" (I hope this phrasing is correct). What are the consequences for momentum conservation, going by this example? Are there any?

Cheers,
Xpl0rer

There are no consequences for momentum conservation.

Momentum conservation applies whether the parts of the system are visible to a particular observer or not.

In your example, there are two systems, one that includes the distance galaxy and one that does not.  These two systems have different momenta.  In each system, the momentum is conserved.  At the point in time where the distance galaxy passes out of the region where you could ever receive information about it again, those two systems still exist, and each still has exactly the same momentum it did before.  The only difference is that the "visible universe" from your point of view changed from one of the two systems to the other.  Each system still independently conserves its own momentum.

Conservation of momentum doesn't care a bit about visibility.  It keeps right on going independently of whether any particular observer can ever receive information from all the parts of the system, even if no observer exists that can receive information from all parts of the system.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/03/2013 05:22 am
Imagine a distant galaxy on the edges of the visible universe. The matter in the galaxy possesses momentum which contributes to the absolute momentum of the visible universe. If space expansion between two points gets greater than the speed of light, then the galaxy finally leaves our personal universal event horizon - and with it its momentum. From our POV, the momentum of the system "universe" seems to change (i.e. part of it is seemingly lost), because space expansion becomes greater than the speed with which information can be transferred (speed of light). One moment we know the "countable" momentum is X, the next moment it becomes X-N.

This is the heart of the scenario I posted a few weeks ago.  We have one universe which started expanding from one big bang.  At first, everything, all mass, was in the same light cone.  Then some of it expanded out of the light cone.  It's as if a significant part of the universe is disappearing with each successive second.

The phrase, "I sense a great disturbance in the force" comes to mind.

Also, where the heck would this boundary be?  There's a star or galaxy on one side of the boundary, which we can no longer see.  But is that boundary also expanding faster than the speed of lite?  Then we could never see the boundary.

So when these theoretical physicists say that the inertia here is caused by mass there, how can that be? There is literally no "there" there; the boundary is receding too fast.  How can that distant mass affect local inertia instantaneously?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the idea of conservation of momentum.

Conservation of momentum does not say that distant masses instantaneously affect local masses.  What it does say is that whenever two masses do affect each other through a force, the effects on one of the masses will be equal and opposite to the effects on the other mass.

As long as there are no external forces, the combined mass of the entire system will be constant.  This does not require any instantaneous action at a distance.  It doesn't require any action at a distance at all.  If two masses interact while close and then move a great distance away and stop having a force between them, mass will continue to be conserved for the whole system simply by the fact that each will continue to have the same momentum from one moment to the next as they fly away from each other.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Xpl0rer on 04/03/2013 09:20 am

There are no consequences for momentum conservation.

Momentum conservation applies whether the parts of the system are visible to a particular observer or not.

In your example, there are two systems, one that includes the distance galaxy and one that does not.  These two systems have different momenta.  In each system, the momentum is conserved.  At the point in time where the distance galaxy passes out of the region where you could ever receive information about it again, those two systems still exist, and each still has exactly the same momentum it did before.  The only difference is that the "visible universe" from your point of view changed from one of the two systems to the other.  Each system still independently conserves its own momentum.

Conservation of momentum doesn't care a bit about visibility.  It keeps right on going independently of whether any particular observer can ever receive information from all the parts of the system, even if no observer exists that can receive information from all parts of the system.

I agree that "visibility" should have no consequences for whether momentum is conserved or not, omniversally speaking. I just see a problem arising in the form that there could be a situation in which some distant matter of the universe and its momentum gets separated by superluminal spacial expansion and thus leaves "our" space-time domain that's defined by "our" light cone.

It should be clear that the momentum within an inertial system is constant and the vectors annihilate time averaged. However, when some distant matter leaves "our" light cone, the momentum vectors in "our" system don't add up to Zero anymore. A factual imbalance has occurred.

Over arbitrary timescales, an averaging of momentum vectors should occur (like injected hot gas molecules imparting their greater impulse onto the masses of other molecules of a closed system). I could interpret this as a "heating process" from the "seams" of our light cone.

Concerning Woodward's effect, there's something bothering me. If the effect is to be caused by the ambient gravitational field of the distant matter, and gravity moves at the speed of light, the effect should grow weaker over time. Reason being, spacial separation grows faster and faster with distance and distant matter simply escapes faster than light (and thus gravity) can travel. Decreasing amounts of detectable matter means decreasing ambient gravitational fields.

In case the spacial expansion does not matter for the effect (see above), it gets kind of ugly IMHO, since Woodward's effect were dependent on matter that could also reside outside our space-time domain. And that could be an arbitrary amount of it in arbitrary distances we could never hope to measure. If that were the case, then Woodward's effect would simply be a "practical" means of travel without a real scientific basis (because we can't experiment with and measure stuff that's "infinitely" far away).

There are too many open questions. Nevertheless, I'd be grinning like the Cheshire cat if some real, usable devices pop up from that.

Best regards
Xpl0rer
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/03/2013 10:29 am

There are no consequences for momentum conservation.

Momentum conservation applies whether the parts of the system are visible to a particular observer or not.

In your example, there are two systems, one that includes the distance galaxy and one that does not.  These two systems have different momenta.  In each system, the momentum is conserved.  At the point in time where the distance galaxy passes out of the region where you could ever receive information about it again, those two systems still exist, and each still has exactly the same momentum it did before.  The only difference is that the "visible universe" from your point of view changed from one of the two systems to the other.  Each system still independently conserves its own momentum.

Conservation of momentum doesn't care a bit about visibility.  It keeps right on going independently of whether any particular observer can ever receive information from all the parts of the system, even if no observer exists that can receive information from all parts of the system.

I agree that "visibility" should have no consequences for whether momentum is conserved or not, omniversally speaking. I just see a problem arising in the form that there could be a situation in which some distant matter of the universe and its momentum gets separated by superluminal spacial expansion and thus leaves "our" space-time domain that's defined by "our" light cone.

Again, it doesn't matter at all whether some distant matter goes out of our light cone.  It has no effect on conservation of matter for any system, nor on the momentum of any mass.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/03/2013 10:38 am

There are no consequences for momentum conservation.

Momentum conservation applies whether the parts of the system are visible to a particular observer or not.

In your example, there are two systems, one that includes the distance galaxy and one that does not.  These two systems have different momenta.  In each system, the momentum is conserved.  At the point in time where the distance galaxy passes out of the region where you could ever receive information about it again, those two systems still exist, and each still has exactly the same momentum it did before.  The only difference is that the "visible universe" from your point of view changed from one of the two systems to the other.  Each system still independently conserves its own momentum.

Conservation of momentum doesn't care a bit about visibility.  It keeps right on going independently of whether any particular observer can ever receive information from all the parts of the system, even if no observer exists that can receive information from all parts of the system.

It should be clear that the momentum within an inertial system is constant and the vectors annihilate time averaged. However, when some distant matter leaves "our" light cone, the momentum vectors in "our" system don't add up to Zero anymore. A factual imbalance has occurred.

No.  No "factual imbalance" has occurred.

As I said before, there are two systems, one without the distant mass and one with it.  Each system is conserving its own momentum over time.  You're making the mistake of defining "all the mass currently in my light cone" as a system that should have its momentum conserved.  But that is wrong.  The system of "all the mass currently in my light cone" is *not* a closed system.  Mass is being removed from it over time.  You can't expect momentum to be the same before and after you remove some of the mass from that system.

It's just as wrong as if I defined a system as "all the mass within 100 feet of my rocket", then noticed that when I fire my rocket engine, after some time the net momentum of "all the mass within 100 feet of my rocket" has changed.  Of course it changed, because some of the propellent went more than 100 feet from the back of my rocket.

All momentum conservation laws assume you're talking about the same set of masses at times T1 and T2.  You can't compare the momentum of one set of masses at time T1 with the momentum of another set of masses at time T2.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/03/2013 10:54 am

There are no consequences for momentum conservation.

Momentum conservation applies whether the parts of the system are visible to a particular observer or not.

In your example, there are two systems, one that includes the distance galaxy and one that does not.  These two systems have different momenta.  In each system, the momentum is conserved.  At the point in time where the distance galaxy passes out of the region where you could ever receive information about it again, those two systems still exist, and each still has exactly the same momentum it did before.  The only difference is that the "visible universe" from your point of view changed from one of the two systems to the other.  Each system still independently conserves its own momentum.

Conservation of momentum doesn't care a bit about visibility.  It keeps right on going independently of whether any particular observer can ever receive information from all the parts of the system, even if no observer exists that can receive information from all parts of the system.

Concerning Woodward's effect, there's something bothering me. ...

The only thing that should be bothering you about Woodward's Effect is that it's pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Woodward published his theories more than 20 years ago, yet he has failed to convince any mainstream physicist that it has any truth to it.  Woodward doesn't even have a doctorate in physics -- his PhD is in history.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Xpl0rer on 04/03/2013 11:23 am
By using this "100 feet away" picture, I think you ignore a relevant qualitative difference. In your example, the ejected propellant is still within a volume that is connected to the rocket via light speed (i.e. rocket and propellant are within a causally connected volume) - even if the propellant is outside your arbitrary set system limits.

I think that what you don't quite realize is that a superluminal spacial expanison between very distant objects irrecoverably cuts off the causal connectivity between those objects. This is not trivial and can't be ignored by simply saying "the vanished matter still retains its impulse". It is scientifically impossible to state what happens or not outside our light cone. Our causal reality is defined by the things we can interact with. And that's exactly the stuff that's connected by causality (i.e. light speed).

I agree that, purely logically, the momentum of the vanished matter should be the same in itself even after the vanishing outside our light cone. But I see a problem here, too. Momentum is a vector, which is coordinate system dependent. But if the matter leaves "our" coordinate system via spacial expansion, are those systems still equivalent? Can this be falsified in any way? I doubt it.

I just want to say with all of that that reality isn't that simple, even if some would like to have it that way. I don't know if Woodward's math or explanations have anything to do with how reality works. Math is IMO just a tool that (sometimes) allows for good enough approximations of what reality does. Until the models need improvement. I personally find the idea of waves traveling back in time from distant matter to justify the Mach effect hair-raising, to say the least. But hey, what do I know.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/03/2013 11:32 am
Hello,

there's a thought experiment concerning propulsion I'd like to present. Imagine two objects with different mass in free space, being apart 1ly. They are connected by an ideal rope of negligible mass. As is known, space is expanding at a rate of about (21.25km/s)/Mly or (2.125cm/s)/ly. Since the amount of space between the objects is increasing and the rope prevents the objects from moving apart, they experience a net diametral force, each pulling on the other object.

Is my assumption correct, that the object with more mass pulls stronger on the object with less mass (since both objects are being moved with their local space-time section) and thus the less mass-rich object moves away from a nearby free observer? Wouldn't this also be a propellantless propulsion, or am I missing something?

Best regards

Yes, you're missing something.  The smaller mass would experience more of a displacement relative to the inertial frame it was initially at rest in than the larger mass, but each mass would move toward the other, and the center of mass of the two-mass system would remain at rest in the inertial frame in which it was initially at rest.

Here's an analogy (an imperfect analogy, but one that might give some intuitive feel for what is going on):  Imagine a flat merry-go round.  Place several rocks on one side and several others on the other side.  Tie one of the rocks from one side to another rock on the other side with a different mass.  Now spin up the merry-go-round.  Assume the surface of the merry-go-round doesn't have much friction, so the rocks are free to slide around it, but watch with a camera that rotates with the merry-go-round from a point directly above the center of it.  What do you see in this camera?  Well, you see the group of rocks that aren't on the rope fly off away from the center of the merry-go-round.  Relative to the group of rocks around the small rock, that rock seems to move inward, because the rocks around it are flying out.  The same is true of the larger rock on the other end, relative to the rocks around it that fly off in the other direction.  But for the rocks on the rope to stay stationary in the view of the camera, the center of the merry-go-round must be closer to the larger mass.  So the rocks around the smaller mass will fly off faster than those around the larger mass.  That is, the small mass will seem to be accelerating faster relative to the rocks around it than the large mass seems to be accelerating relative to the rocks around the large mass.  And yet, the center of mass of the two rock system will remain exactly where it as.

So, there's no propellantless propulsion going on.  The center of mass of the two-mass system experiences no movement at all, even though the smaller mass seems to see a larger acceleration than the larger mass.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/03/2013 11:59 am
By using this "100 feet away" picture, I think you ignore a relevant qualitative difference. In your example, the ejected propellant is still within a volume that is connected to the rocket via light speed (i.e. rocket and propellant are within a causally connected volume) - even if the propellant is outside your arbitrary set system limits.

No, I'm not ignoring a relevant qualitative difference.  There is no relevant difference.  That is my point.

You may care about whether a mass is in your light cone or not, but conservation of momentum does not.

I think that what you don't quite realize is that a superluminal spacial expanison between very distant objects irrecoverably cuts off the causal connectivity between those objects.

Of course I realize that.  That's what I've meant when I've talked about a light cone, just as you have.

But causal connectivity has nothing to do with conservation of momentum.  Momentum continues to be conserved in a system even if two parts of that system can no longer have any effect on one another.

You seem to think conservation of momentum is some kind of ongoing effect one mass is having on another.  It is not.

This is not trivial and can't be ignored by simply saying "the vanished matter still retains its impulse". It is scientifically impossible to state what happens or not outside our light cone.

It doesn't matter whether we know what happens to the mass outside our light cone.  Either something else exerts a force on the distant mass, in which case the system is no longer closed and there is no conservation of momentum, or nothing else exerts a force on the distant mass, and the two mass system conserves its momentum.  We don't have to know what actually happens to know that whatever it is, the total system momentum is only changed if an outside force is applied.  And, in any case, something exerting a force on the distant mass affects the momentum of the distant mass and the momentum of the two-mass system, but it doesn't affect the momentum of the local mass.

Our causal reality is defined by the things we can interact with. And that's exactly the stuff that's connected by causality (i.e. light speed).

I agree that, purely logically, the momentum of the vanished matter should be the same in itself even after the vanishing outside our light cone. But I see a problem here, too. Momentum is a vector, which is coordinate system dependent. But if the matter leaves "our" coordinate system via spacial expansion, are those systems still equivalent? Can this be falsified in any way? I doubt it.

It doesn't leave our coordinate system.  It only leaves our light cone.  It's still in our coordinate system.

I just want to say with all of that that reality isn't that simple, even if some would like to have it that way.

When you say "reality isn't that simple" do you mean what I am claiming is false?  Because everything I've been claiming is pretty basic physics.  Ask any one of tens of thousands of professional physicists and they would agree with what I said.

I don't know if Woodward's math or explanations have anything to do with how reality works. Math is IMO just a tool that (sometimes) allows for good enough approximations of what reality does. Until the models need improvement.

And professional physicists are working every day to explore the limits of our current models and come up with better models.  But they do it based on a good understanding of the current models, and careful, peer-reviewed experimental results.

Woodward's explanations, unfortunately, show a profound misunderstanding of current models of physics, and his experimental methods have not been convincing to any mainstream physicists.

I personally find the idea of waves traveling back in time from distant matter to justify the Mach effect hair-raising, to say the least. But hey, what do I know.

Sadly, as nice as it would be for Woodward's theories to be true, all logic and evidence currently available argues that they are not.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/03/2013 12:08 pm
Also, where the heck would this boundary be?  There's a star or galaxy on one side of the boundary, which we can no longer see.  But is that boundary also expanding faster than the speed of lite?  Then we could never see the boundary.

It's not the sort of boundary you would ever directly see, any more than you can see the event horizon of a black hole.

So when these theoretical physicists say that the inertia here is caused by mass there, how can that be? There is literally no "there" there; the boundary is receding too fast.  How can that distant mass affect local inertia instantaneously?

No reputable theoretical physicist would ever say that inertia here is caused by mass there.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/03/2013 12:15 pm
Thanks, QuantumG :) .

I'd like to expand on that thought experiment and change it slightly. Imagine the two objects being identical viewing platforms. Two astronauts of equal mass are placed on them, their heads facing towards each other. Since there is a constant spacial displacement going on, the astronauts are being "pushed" against their respective viewing platforms. I think this should have the same effect as gravity would have for them, as long as they are standing on the platforms which are connected via the aforementioned rope. What do you think?

You are correct.  Each astronaut would experience a gravity-like acceleration pulling him or her into the viewing platform.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/03/2013 02:23 pm
There are no consequences for momentum conservation.

Momentum conservation applies whether the parts of the system are visible to a particular observer or not.

... At the point in time where the distant galaxy passes out of the region where you could ever receive information about it again, those two systems still exist, and each still has exactly the same momentum it did before.  The only difference is that the "visible universe" from your point of view changed from one of the two systems to the other.  Each system still independently conserves its own momentum.

Conservation of momentum doesn't care a bit about visibility.  It keeps right on going independently of whether any particular observer can ever receive information from all the parts of the system, even if no observer exists that can receive information from all parts of the system.

This is not making sufficient sense to me.  If, "momentum conservation applies whether the parts of the system are visible to a particular observer or not", then there must be instantaneous action at a distance over that fast moving boundary, and it must hold for the entire universe.

Perhaps it is thought that momentum is not information, therefore not required to follow the speed limit, c?  That's what "visibilty" presumes.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the idea of conservation of momentum.

Conservation of momentum does not say that distant masses instantaneously affect local masses.  What it does say is that whenever two masses do affect each other through a force, the effects on one of the masses will be equal and opposite to the effects on the other mass.

As long as there are no external forces, the combined mass of the entire system will be constant.  This does not require any instantaneous action at a distance.  It doesn't require any action at a distance at all.  If two masses interact while close and then move a great distance away and stop having a force between them, mass will continue to be conserved for the whole system simply by the fact that each will continue to have the same momentum from one moment to the next as they fly away from each other.

As long as they are in the same light cone, apparently.

I have a pretty good understanding of the idea of conservation of momentum.

I do not understand the ramifications of the  "boundary" conditions being discussed, nor the effect that the speed of the moving boundary has upon distant objects.  Plus, in Woodward's scheme, there are external forces; the energy required to start his machine working.

Explorer sez it beter than I do:

It should be clear that the momentum within an inertial system is constant and the vectors annihilate time averaged. However, when some distant matter leaves "our" light cone, the momentum vectors in "our" system don't add up to Zero anymore. A factual imbalance has occurred.

And you seem to be saying the same thing:

The system of "all the mass currently in my light cone" is *not* a closed system.  Mass is being removed from it over time.  You can't expect momentum to be the same before and after you remove some of the mass from that system.

He doesn't expect the momentum to remain the same.  Neither do you.  What is your point of difference?
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/03/2013 02:37 pm
Here's an analogy (an imperfect analogy, but one that might give some intuitive feel for what is going on):  Imagine a flat merry-go round.  Place several rocks on one side and several others on the other side.  Tie one of the rocks from one side to another rock on the other side with a different mass.

Rolling with this analogy.  There's a limit, say c,  to the length of string tying the rocks together.  This is the light cone of causality.  When the string breaks, what happens?

But causal connectivity has nothing to do with conservation of momentum.  Momentum continues to be conserved in a system even if two parts of that system can no longer have any effect on one another.

If that is true, then continuing with the analogy, even if the string is broken, the rocks behave in the same way, only now, distant mass out "there" affects local inertia "here".

It doesn't leave our coordinate system.  It only leaves our light cone.  It's still in our coordinate system.

Beyond our light cone, we cannot know any information about any other coordinate system.

Quote from: ChrisWilson
It doesn't leave our coordinate system.  It only leaves our light cone.  It's still in our coordinate system.

That may be true, but he has not yet been totally repudiated by mainstream physics.  The mainstream physicists are engaging in prior contempt of his ideas and math.  Therefore, they take the lazy way out, and will not do the math, like that lazy fella above who will not discuss Sciama 1953, which is the basis of Woodward's definition of inertia.

You are free to insist that "No reputable theoretical physicist would ever say that inertia here is caused by mass there."  I don't know about that; I insist first that Mach and Sciama be either confirmed or repudiated.  Then Woodward can be subject to further analysis.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Xpl0rer on 04/03/2013 05:12 pm
@ JohnFornaro

I don't think I understand what you mean. Why should something happening "an eternity away" affect any local momentum? It sounds more like magic than physics to me :) .

Anyway, your last quote from ChrisWilson68 IMHO correctly pointed out a contradiction. Does momentum change, or doesn't it? It seems to me that the spacial expansion defines a one-way door. So it is neither an open nor a closed system. It's more like a half-open or half-closed system. Hence I think using the terms "open/closed system" isn't adequate in this context.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/03/2013 05:33 pm
@ JohnFornaro

I don't think I understand what you mean. Why should something happening "an eternity away" affect any local momentum? It sounds more like magic than physics to me.


Probably the reason you don't understand the question that I asked is because you have not summarized or rephrased my question correctly.

I didn't use the term "eternity away", nor did I insist that there "should" be an effect.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Xpl0rer on 04/03/2013 05:55 pm
Ah, my bad. I did not intend to rephrase or anything.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cordwainer on 04/07/2013 12:00 am
EmDrive is bunk but Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thrusters might not be pseudoscience although I suspect that it would be better to call them Quantum Vacuum Plasma Tethers since they would operate on "open systems" like electrodynamic tethers. Theoretically an electrodynamic tether or mag-sail could break away from the Earth's gravity well, via Magbeam propulsion or some form of "giganto-magnetism". Though large diamagnetic repulsive forces have been demonstrated they normally require rare and expensive diamagnetic materials.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: cordwainer on 04/08/2013 07:33 pm
I do wonder if you could make a electrodynamic tether out of plasma similar to a mini-magnetospheric sail. I know ion propulsion systems use the Earth's electromagnetic field to impart inertia to their propellant stream at times while in flight. If you could only bounce plasma between two ships through field reversal or magnetic mirrors, you might be able to improve upon the electrodynamic effect that magnetic fields have on your "tether" through the giganto-magnetic effect sometimes exhibited in highly charged plasmas. Of course you would have to use a lot of fuel  or physical tethers to keep your two ships from pushing away from one another. Being able to adjust the charge and flow rate of the plasma might make the tether more efficient as well.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Anatol on 11/10/2013 03:04 pm
In the past  decade  in  the USA  competitions of  space elevator prototypes were carried out.  The climbers were fitted with  photovoltaic array facing  towards  the Earth and scaled the tether using a ground-based high power laser. The success of the specified space launch method raises doubts. The innovative system will arise if  the subsidiary tether of a heat-sensitive shape memory  material is fastened to  the main space elevator cable.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/23/2014 01:05 am
Thread bump.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: frobnicat on 12/19/2014 01:57 am
Mach effects follow up. I post on this thread (that I must admit haven't read quite yet) because seems more on topic than the other propellantless thread titled "EM drive".

Before the discussion on first thread "EM drive development" got interrupted I wondered what kind of proof of science (not proof of application) could be devised about reality of Mach effect and Ron Stahl told us about positive results with "rotator" experiments done by Woodward (but scientific community apparently ignored that...). No direct link were provided and it took me a bit of time to do a circle to physics forums (http://physics forums) (with comments from AcesHigh linking back to NSF) and Next Big Future (http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/mach-effect-part-ii.html) where I learnt that the device was named "Mark-III rotary test rig" which sent me right back to NSF (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.msg676371#msg676371) where Star-Drive (Paul March) attached an article (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13020.0;attach=260412) (and a revised edition (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13020.0;attach=260481) a few posts after on the thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.msg676428#msg676428))

I don't know which version is referenced as :
Woodward, J.F., A Test for the Existence of Mach Effects With a Rotary Device, in the proceedings of Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum (SPESIF-10), edited by Glen A. Robertson, AIP CP1208, Melville, New York, 2010 p. 227-236.

It appears NSF forum, posted by Paul March, is the only place this important fundamental research work is available (freely, it is paywalled on AIP proceedings site). Searching for references shows only a work (devising an alternative experiment, no actual results) by Buldrini (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13020.0;attach=484587) also hosted on NSF thread "Propellantless Field Propulsion and application" (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.msg831835#msg831835)

Looks like NSF is becoming the only arxiv of those works.

So it's not that this attempt by Woodward at an experiment specifically aimed at detectable Mach effect (not usable) did meet rejection or refutation or scientific community outrage : it was utterly ignored, as far as publications or public statements go. This was 4 years ago and comments dating of that time, on this very thread, are still relevant concerning the necessity of this work and its caveats (starting about there... (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.1020)). This line of inquiry (concentrating on showing the reality of an effect) that in domains dealing with not obvious fundamental science would be the right way to proceed, seems to have been completely abandoned at an incomplete stage, but is still reffered by proponents as conclusive.

While I'm at it : this post (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/woodward-effect-explain-please.259842/#post-1891574) summarises well my impression on Mach effect and concludes by
Quote from: Jonathan Scott
... if there is any possibility of some propellantless drive, it cannot arise from combining existing physical effects in a new complicated way, as all of those physical effects are known to be subject to the local conservation rules. It can only arise from new physics.

Proponents keep on insisting that their Machian derivations are fully GR compatible. I don't see the necessity of adding anything to SR/GR to get a prediction of what will happen to the mass when having a varying power (second energy derivative) applied to a bulk accelerating material : nothing more than a small integrated E/c˛ term on the rest mass.

edit : "A Test for the Existence of Mach Effects With a Rotary Device" appears not to be mentioned in Woodward's book "Making Starships and Stargates"

Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Cinder on 12/19/2014 04:33 am
Paul March also posted at Talk-Polywell.  IIRC it was usually the same content there as what he shared here, but that's my vague memory as a non-professional spectator.  His user name at TP is "paulmarch".
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 12/21/2014 11:32 pm
Presentation of Mach Effect at NASA
http://aspw.jpl.nasa.gov/files/ASPW2014%20PRESENTATIONS/WEDNESDAY/Breakthrough%20Prop/Fearn.pdf

NextBigFuture post
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/12/recent-mach-effect-theory-and.html#disqus_thread

DeltaV post at Talk Polywell with links to presentation and other papers, which gave origin to the NBF post
Quote from: DeltaV
Mach Effect Thruster Development
http://aspw.jpl.nasa.gov/files/ASPW2014%20ABSTRACTS/WEDNESDAY/Fearn.pdf (http://aspw.jpl.nasa.gov/files/ASPW2014%20ABSTRACTS/WEDNESDAY/Fearn.pdf)

Theory & Experimental Work on Mach Effect Thrusters (MET)
http://aspw.jpl.nasa.gov/files/ASPW2014%20PRESENTATIONS/WEDNESDAY/Breakthrough%20Prop/Fearn.pdf (http://aspw.jpl.nasa.gov/files/ASPW2014%20PRESENTATIONS/WEDNESDAY/Breakthrough%20Prop/Fearn.pdf)

Mach’s principle, Action at a Distance and Cosmology
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.5426v1 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.5426v1)
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: Stormbringer on 12/22/2014 12:03 am
please cross post to the mach effect thread too :)

May as well consolidate all Mach Effect/Woodward stuff  so that searchers don't have to go through dozens of threads to find relevant information. That's how I go here; looking for stuff on White/QVPT/Warp interferometer experiment in google.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: aceshigh on 12/22/2014 04:11 pm
please cross post to the mach effect thread too :)

do we have a Mach Effect dedicated thread here? Share the link and I will crosspost.
Title: Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
Post by: D_Dom on 12/22/2014 05:31 pm
Try this, it was somewhat highjacked;
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.465
May be brought back on-topic...