Propellantless Field Propulsion and application

[cuddihy]

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?

[sfuerst]

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.

[Afrocle]

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.

[JohnFornaro]

Found this recent paper this morning, outlining a different approach to an experimental setup for measuring the Mach effect.  From the conclusion:

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.

[sanman]

Found this recent paper this morning, outlining a different approach to an experimental setup for measuring the Mach effect.  From the conclusion:

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?

[QuantumG]

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.

[JohnFornaro]

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?

[sanman]

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.
 

[simonbp]

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.

[sanman]

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?

[JohnFornaro]

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?

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".

From the oracle:

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

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

What's an armchair scientist to think?

How many photons does it take to screw a lightbulb?

Oh no.  Something else to keep me awake at night.

[Sith]

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...

[sanman]

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.

[KelvinZero]

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!

[sanman]

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) 

[2552]

New on Arxiv from Heidi Fearn and James F. Woodward: Experimental Null test of a Mach Effect Thruster

[sanman]

New on Arxiv from Heidi Fearn and James F. Woodward: Experimental Null test of a Mach Effect Thruster

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.

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.

[antiquark]

New on Arxiv from Heidi Fearn and James F. Woodward: Experimental Null test of a Mach Effect Thruster

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.

[93143]

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.

[grondilu]

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