Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application (Read 1079237 times)

Prober · « **Reply #1540 on:** 10/08/2011 08:34 pm »

Can a sound cannon be used for Propulsion?

Star-Drive · « **Reply #1541 on:** 10/09/2011 04:20 am »

Quote from: GeeGee on 10/08/2011 08:12 pm

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.

mlorrey · « **Reply #1542 on:** 10/09/2011 06:06 am »

Quote from: madsci on 10/07/2011 11:08 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.

madsci · « **Reply #1543 on:** 10/09/2011 10:48 pm »

Quote from: mlorrey on 10/09/2011 06:06 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 ?

mlorrey · « **Reply #1544 on:** 10/10/2011 02:55 am »

Quote from: madsci on 10/09/2011 10:48 pm

Quote from: mlorrey on 10/09/2011 06:06 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.

GeeGee · « **Reply #1545 on:** 10/12/2011 12:51 am »

Posted this 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)?

mlorrey · « **Reply #1546 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.

Sith · « **Reply #1547 on:** 10/14/2011 08:39 pm »

Quote from: 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.

What happened with the casimir projects? No news lately...

mlorrey · « **Reply #1548 on:** 10/16/2011 07:28 pm »

Quote from: Sith on 10/14/2011 08:39 pm

Quote from: 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.
What happened with the casimir projects? No news lately...

I've sent a message to Adrian to see whats what with his project.

GeeGee · « **Reply #1549 on:** 10/16/2011 09:21 pm »

Huge casimir effect at finite temperature in electromagnetic Rindler space

If this works, it might make Casimir batteries a reality.

aceshigh · « **Reply #1550 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"

GeeGee · « **Reply #1551 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?

UncleMatt · « **Reply #1552 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?

GeeGee · « **Reply #1553 on:** 10/24/2011 01:22 am »

Quote from: 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?

Paul has said he would be doing the experiment during the fall. Not sure if he has done it already.

Star-Drive · « **Reply #1554 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.

UncleMatt · « **Reply #1555 on:** 10/24/2011 11:49 am »

Thanks for the update, I look forward to your next test.

MikeAtkinson · « **Reply #1556 on:** 10/24/2011 12:22 pm »

Quote from: GeeGee on 10/12/2011 12:51 am

"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.

GeeGee · « **Reply #1557 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"

Star-Drive · « **Reply #1558 on:** 10/26/2011 05:13 am »

Quote from: 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"

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.

GeeGee · « **Reply #1559 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.