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..
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.
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.
Quote from: GeeGee on 03/19/2011 02:24 amIn 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.
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.
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.
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.
I've come to the conclusion that statements such as these come from one of two camps. 1. Vested interest2. Opinions without cause (the unknowlegeable?)
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.
Opinions without a cause.
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 from: cuddihy on 03/26/2011 07:27 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?
Quote from: mikorangester on 03/26/2011 02:48 amI've come to the conclusion that statements such as these come from one of two camps. 1. Vested interest2. 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. QuoteWhat 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.QuoteThe 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?QuoteAs 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.
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 articleEither way, nothing is going to result from it.
The experiment more importantly proves that it works. And even NASA agrees that it works.
Quote from: mikorangester on 03/29/2011 03:12 amThe 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?