Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application (Read 1079573 times)

Star-Drive · « **Reply #1560 on:** 10/27/2011 04:34 am »

Quote from: 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.

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.

Sith · « **Reply #1561 on:** 10/28/2011 08:53 pm »

Quote from: mlorrey 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.

What did he said?

mlorrey · « **Reply #1562 on:** 10/28/2011 10:29 pm »

Quote from: Sith on 10/28/2011 08:53 pm

Quote from: mlorrey 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.
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.

Anatol · « **Reply #1563 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.

mlorrey · « **Reply #1564 on:** 11/07/2011 04:44 am »

Quote from: 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.

Sorry, but thats just wrong.

JohnFornaro · « **Reply #1565 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.

madsci · « **Reply #1566 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.

D_Dom · « **Reply #1567 on:** 11/09/2011 03:10 pm »

Quote from: madsci on 11/09/2011 02:28 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.

madsci · « **Reply #1568 on:** 11/09/2011 05:47 pm »

Quote from: cygnusX1 on 11/09/2011 03:10 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.

Anatol · « **Reply #1569 on:** 11/10/2011 03:10 pm »

Quote from: mlorrey on 11/07/2011 04:44 am

Quote from: 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.

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.)

D_Dom · « **Reply #1570 on:** 11/10/2011 03:29 pm »

Quote from: madsci on 11/09/2011 05:47 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 "

Moe Grills · « **Reply #1571 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.

GeeGee · « **Reply #1572 on:** 11/11/2011 12:51 am »

Quote from: 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.

Not sure what you're on about...

madsci · « **Reply #1573 on:** 11/11/2011 06:12 am »

Quote from: GeeGee on 11/11/2011 12:51 am

Quote from: 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.

Not sure what you're on about...

Maybe he's talking about Alcubierre drives or stuff like that.

JohnFornaro · « **Reply #1574 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.

GeeGee · « **Reply #1575 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

madsci · « **Reply #1576 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 ?

GeeGee · « **Reply #1577 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.

kurt9 · « **Reply #1578 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.

cuddihy · « **Reply #1579 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.