Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/18/2013 01:00 pmThe 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.Well, yes - yes they can.A one-ampere current in a loop a foot wide could produce a few micronewtons of thrust in LEO without expending any power at all beyond making up resistive losses ...
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.
It's probably possible to design an experiment that would be effectively immune to these sorts of effects, and/or run it in such a way as to rule them out. My point is simply that a space demo is not automatically ironclad proof of principle ...
Quote from: Star-Drive on 06/17/2013 12:48 pmThe 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.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.
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.
Given the successful operative theory of the drive, there are still many years of scaling up the effort,
and there is still the medical restraint on low gravity human living arrangements that will have to be determined empirically, over at least one generation at the earliest.
And to create an offworld government would require a good number of competent people and systems.
No principle of which I would not agree with in theory, remembering that if one is not invited, one is not invited.
We're talking about four tenths of a newton per kilowatt of electricity, a good bit more than what you just mentioned, even with my current counting skills.
And if what you just described only works in the Earth's magnetic field in a preferred direction, then it would be limited to utility in that environment only. All the talk about intergalactic starships should be minimized to, well, stationkeeping in LEO.
If the device is this good, why not apply it in a space experiment? That would be the next obvious step.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/19/2013 02:40 amWe're talking about four tenths of a newton per kilowatt of electricity, a good bit more than what you just mentioned, even with my current counting skills.Key phrase is "per kilowatt". The M-E thrusters I'm aware of don't use a kilowatt. The best-controlled experiments I've heard about (Woodward's) register thrusts in the micronewton range.
M-E works fine pretty much anywhere in the universe, if it works at all.
Last I heard, the average thruster lifetime was about a quarter of an hour of operation before the crystals needed annealing ... And controlling/matching electrical and mechanical resonances in a device that heats up this much during operation is an 'interesting' problem.
...what the problem is? ...Too much experimental mass, and no clear method of reducing it? Cooling problems? Degenerating "flux" capacitors?
...the fact YOU think its a good idea based on a sound theory doesnt change anything.
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?
Every major and mid-rate power on Earth would jump these patents once the device is demonstrated. The potential is too vast to allow IP to be respected.
One can be sure, in this NSA infested world, that honest efforts will not go unnoticed.
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.
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.
Quote from: WoodwardThis condition on gravitational potential energy reveals Einstein's first prediction quoted above as wrong.Is that "first prediction" the addition of Einstein's "cosmological constant"?
This condition on gravitational potential energy reveals Einstein's first prediction quoted above as wrong.
... they will have to be very private indeed if they plan to start a colonization effort, along with its expected new government, else why the lack of publicity.
The talk about warp drives seems more to be the gleam in the eye of the rooster. There's not even an egg yet. Much less a chicken.
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).
Quote from: aceshigh on 06/19/2013 12:45 am...the fact YOU think its a good idea based on a sound theory doesnt change anything.Took a more careful read of your comment. "YOU" as in moi? There is no "fact" that I think it is based on a "sound theory". A careful read of my commentary should confirm that.
I said "you" as in anyone (including Woodward) thinking his theory is good, does not means everyone else thinks the same, thus asking for money may actually be pretty suspicious (just like with Andrea Rossi)
Quote from: djolds1 on 06/19/2013 07:19 amEvery major and mid-rate power on Earth would jump these patents once the device is demonstrated. The potential is too vast to allow IP to be respected.Well certainly. Like I said: Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/19/2013 02:50 amOne can be sure, in this NSA infested world, that honest efforts will not go unnoticed.Even so, NDA's and the proper lab personel culture, can protect work for a long time:
At some point, if there are spaceships involved, the team will have to purchase a volcanic island somewhere, create a retractable lake over the crater, build submarine portals, etc., etc. All the while looking over their shoulder for an incredibly fit 70 to 80 year old British spy to destroy the whole shebang in twenty minutes, over a bag of popcorn.
So my focus is on understanding the theory, sussing out the reality of the 0.4N/kWe statistic, and more mundane stuff like that.
if it's related to spaceflight, talk about spaceflight.
If not, why?
Your string theorist is not a reliable authority on the subject. I doubt such a thing exists at this point in time.
There is certainly some debate about the issue - in fact there is not a universally accepted definition of Mach's principle, and as far as I know there is no widely accepted explanation for inertia in GR.
Woodward's papers have withstood peer review so far, and no critique I'm aware of can say the same. As a published scientific author I have some experience with peer review, and I don't regard it as an ultimate authority, but it's not nothing.
Have you read any of it? His papers, his book?
Also, I believe the assertion "He claims his theory can explain virtually every unsolved problem in contemporary physics." is untrue, unless you consider the origin of inertia in a general relativistic sense to be virtually the only thing we don't know yet. I am aware of no other theoretical claims made by Woodward.