attached 2004 and 2012 papers from Dr. Woodward and then analyzing the 2004 paper's appendix A, which has the full M-E derivation in it. Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date. If you are up to the task and find a credible error in the M-E derivation
Sciama's results are mathematically equivalent to formulations that follow certain laws and Woodward's theories violate those laws, it's not mathematically possible that Woodward is simply following Sciama.
Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date.
...think about what just the 0.4 N/kWe specific force performance metric ... will do for space flight if we can perfect the device's run time.
Quote from: PaulMany people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date.I don't operate that particular mathematical gun at that level, thus do not attempt that shooting. As an aside, on this thread, I continue to point out the disdain which some of the critics here heap on that gun.And on the math only thread, I've asked, but have not yet received.The answers I've gotten so far are mostly the functional equivalent of the sarcastic comment above: "Read my 40,000 page theory on ponies where I skip over the most crucial steps in the math, because basically, it is beneath me to take the time to explain it fully to my inferiors".Moving right along...Quote from: Paul...think about what just the 0.4 N/kWe specific force performance metric ... will do for space flight if we can perfect the device's run time.
Yes, a functional M-E based thruster matters and it could matter in a big way if we can perfect it.
Next for those new to this Mach-Effect (M-E) topic on this thread, you might consider reading and understanding the attached 2004 and 2012 papers from Dr. Woodward and then analyzing the 2004 paper's appendix A, which has the full M-E derivation in it. Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date. If you are up to the task and find a credible error in the M-E derivation, Dr. Woodward would love to hear about it. He can be reached at his CSUF e-mail address or you can ask me for his personal e-mail address if you would prefer that com-link.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 06/15/2013 04:53 amNext for those new to this Mach-Effect (M-E) topic on this thread, you might consider reading and understanding the attached 2004 and 2012 papers from Dr. Woodward and then analyzing the 2004 paper's appendix A, which has the full M-E derivation in it. Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date. If you are up to the task and find a credible error in the M-E derivation, Dr. Woodward would love to hear about it. He can be reached at his CSUF e-mail address or you can ask me for his personal e-mail address if you would prefer that com-link.There were refinements in recent years IIRC - recognition of the bulk acceleration nature of the effect in the working mass, etc. The 2004 paper would fail to capture those, yes?
Paul:You need to let humor into your life.****************************************From Sciama 1953:"We shall assume that matter receding with velocity greater than that of light makes no contribution to the potential, so that the integral in (1) is taken over the spherical radius of c tau. An assumption of this sort is necessary since we have naievly extrapolated the Hubble law without considering relativistic effects, and should give the correct order of magnitude."In other words, the naieve extrapolation assumed "should" give the correct order of magnitude of phi.This is one of the areas that I can't get past. How can an assumption which only "should" provide a correct order of magnitude, be depended upon for correct results? If the radius of the universe is changing, and the mass of the universe is changing, and if all of the mass in the universe hasn't yet been accounted for, what is the validity of the scalar potential phi?****************************************I'm not claiming the theoretical ability to float the device into the conference room. You are. Based on Woodward's theory and recently also on Shawyer's theory.I'm happy to have you lecture me on my commenting "responsibilitie" while simultaneously not having reviewed my posting history as evidence of my effort on this subject.Quote from: PaulYes, a functional M-E based thruster matters and it could matter in a big way if we can perfect it.Yeah, I get that 0.4 N/kWe "would" be a lot.What are your latest results? How much power was put into the experimental system and how much thrust was produced by that system and reliably reported, including all the losses?I am not asking about the "free energy" claims.
I’ll try to remember to smile on occasion…
what is the validity of the scalar potential phi?
Good question and only further experimental data from a number of fronts will tell us if Sciama & Woodward’s phi=C^2 conjecture is right, wrong, or close enough.
This condition on gravitational potential energy reveals Einstein's first prediction quoted above as wrong.
what the problem is?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/17/2013 02:12 pmwhat the problem is? [with soon flying one of these things in LEO.Too much magnetic field and whatnot in LEO. You'd need to go to deep space, and even then there are things that could go wrong (electrical interaction with an offgassing component could produce an accidental ion drive or some such).If the thruster lifetimes haven't gotten any better, straight offgassing (perhaps thermally driven, to explain the close correlation with the power pulses) couldn't be ruled out without close attention to spacecraft design and pre-launch handling...Also, a space mission is a bit steep for Woodward's budget (he's self-funded, as I recall, and won't accept donations).
what the problem is? [with soon flying one of these things in LEO.
If the thrust is thwarted by magnetic fields, then it doesn't seem to be all that powerful.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/17/2013 10:43 pmIf the thrust is thwarted by magnetic fields, then it doesn't seem to be all that powerful.No no no. What I meant is that people who think this device violates the laws of physics won't be convinced by a demo in an environment where a simple current loop could generate the same thrust.It's not a question of the device not working due to the magnetic field; it's a question of whether an observed thrust signature could be due to anything other than a Mach effect. Just putting the thruster in space doesn't necessarily solve all of the experimental control problems.
Even if your only getting thrust a magnitude larger than a hall thruster that still means less electrical energy needed and less or no fuel needed for propulsive force.
The thrust levels cannot be "efficiently" generated at 0.4 N/kWe (about 1 1/2 ounces of force per thousand watts of electricity) AND difficult to distinguish from background effects simulataneously.
Backing up to the "questionable motivation". Questionable, in that, why wouldn't one attempt to get funding for a good idea based upon a sound theory?
Most of the test results from various labs working on these types of RF and shuttler like devices save one indicate that 0.1-to-1.0 N/kWe is the current norm for the 1st generation experimental devices, and yes that includes all the resistive losses in the system. The lab with the exception to this current rule of thumb performance range uses high voltage, low currents, and they are reporting specific force numbers in the 1.0-to-20.0 N/kWe range with possibilities of going up to well over 100.0 N/kWe. And no I’m not at liberty to say who is doing this or how far along they are in making a reliable thruster that works every time. NDAs etc. As to the thrust output range they go from Woodword's single digit micro-Newtons (uN), which is a tribute to Woodward's torque pendulum design and sensitivity, up to just over 10 milli-Newton (mN). Best, P.M.
No need to. Its quite obvious. They have talked they are investigating warp drives and they are pretty sure they will colonize Mars. And will only go public after starting Mars colonization.