-
#1200
by
birchoff
on 01 Oct, 2014 17:26
-
The LHC and the discovery of the Higgs Boson also relied on tens of trillions of data points. Before they started looking for new science, they made sure they rediscovered every other standard model particle to verify that their instruments were accurately calibrated. The discovery of the Higgs Boson relied on the legacy of many other scientific instruments, rather than just the Large Hadron Collider's detectors. Even then, it's accepted scientific literature, in large part, because reproduction steps are available to anyone willing to build another large particle accelerator.
The secret to the LHC's success is a long history of collaboration and openness about their scientific results. Secrecy is the enemy of progress.
another secret is the huge amount of money they have. Imagine a single guy trying to discover the Higgs Boson with an apparatus created with his own money. And other labs not interested in replicating the experiments unless you give yourself the machine you built (and they just use other methods to test).
and your signals are not that strong. You see only hints of the Higgs Boson in your machine.
When you look at it this way, it looks even less okay for EM drive proponents to withhold data from the scientific research community. Major research institutions have the resources to find more signal amidst noise than hobbyists could ever hope for. EM drive researchers should be reaching out to the broader scientific community, to give scientists, researchers, and engineers some evidence, and good faith, that there is something worth investigating in that direction.
To be clear what information has Woodward withheld in his research?
compared to what information has EagleWorks withheld in their research?
-
#1201
by
Ron Stahl
on 01 Oct, 2014 17:30
-
So, at that point in time, at least, he must have been interested in proof of technology, as the US Patent Office (from our Constitution) grants a patent, and hence a monopoly, to reward proof of such technology and its future development. It is interesting that according to Google Patent Search:
Fee status: Lapsed
for the above-mentioned patent. (With the important Google disclaimer that this is not a legal conclusion).
It would be interesting if you could expand:
Does Prof. Woodward have other patents that superseded the above-mentioned patent? If indeed the above information is correct that the fee status has lapsed, and if you are correct in stating that <<he is only concerned with proof of science, not proof of technology >> has anything changed technically since he originally obtained the above-mentioned patent that would motivate to concentrate now on proof of science, rather than proof of technology ?
Of course, there are shades of gray in all this, for example his source of funds at that point in time may have been the one pushing for a patent. I am not interested in his personal motivations, I'm only interested in whether there are some technical reasons (for example the "bulk acceleration" issue, etc.) that may have produced a change of priorities concerning proof of technology.
That patent was owned by Woodward and Fullerton, and it was Fullerton's responsibility to pay to keep it in force. They failed in that obligation. At this point in his 70's, as a survivor of several different kinds of terminal cancer and a long way down the road from that early work, I think he is just more satisfied to do the proof of science rather than look at what it takes to build spaceships. However, he did file for another patent with SSI a couple years ago and I am not sure about the status of that. That was not a replacement patent. It was for the power system instead of the thruster.
I was speaking more from the perspective that he is not currently pursuing a proof of technology demonstrator. The PMN he is currently using has far too narrow a thermal bandwidth to have commercial applications, IMHO. It only maintains its Colossal Dielectric Constant (CDC) across a couple degrees K so were he to try to put it into a satellite, it appears it would consume more power to stabilize it thermally, than the thruster itself would consume. So you could easily have a situation where the pair of systems--the thruster and its thermal control system, dissipate 3-4X as much as the thruster alone. That is not a commercial solution. IMHO, a commercial solution will operate across a broad range of temperatures, in and out of shadow, pulsed, repeated and continuous thrust, and will operate at higher frequencies than PMN is capable of as well, since thrust/mass and thrust/power both scale with the frequency of operation.
I don't think anything has changed
technically that would change Jim's attitude toward commercialization save that he is 18 years older. He's no longer planning for 15 years down the road and that is true of most of the people involved with his work. I'm an exception, but I'm younger than almost everyone else involved this last decade.
-
#1202
by
aero
on 01 Oct, 2014 17:32
-
I was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:
B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, and
E field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.
Are these reasonable values?
I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.
At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.
-
#1203
by
Rodal
on 01 Oct, 2014 17:40
-
That patent was owned by Woodward and Fullerton, and it was Fullerton's responsibility to pay to keep it in force. They failed in that obligation. At this point in his 70's, as a survivor of several different kinds of terminal cancer and a long way down the road from that early work, I think he is just more satisfied to do the proof of science rather than look at what it takes to build spaceships. ...
I'm so sorry to hear that Prof. Woodward went through that. My thoughts and prayers are that he is back to full health.
-
#1204
by
Rodal
on 01 Oct, 2014 17:44
-
I was wondering how much energy was stored within the cavity (truncated frustum) so have been (off and on) looking at math for which I have absolutely no background beyond undergraduate course work. Using the input power and Q-factors given, I calculate that the RF wave B field and E field has energy like:
B field range from 0.27 to 0.62 tesla, and
E field range from 80.4 to 184.8 Mv per metre.
Are these reasonable values?
I also calculated that the energy mass of the RF wave ranges from 0.00064 to 0.0034 micrograms.
At this point I don't know what to do with these numbers but maybe someone will find them interesting.
We know from the "Anomalous Thrust ..." report that the COMSOL finite element calculations display a maximum Electric field of
47189 Volts per meter (p. 10, Fig. 14). I couldn't find any numerical information given for the Electric Field results from COMSOL for the Tapered Cavity.
Also, you may find something useful for comparison in FIg. 16 of the report, for the
predicted and actual gain (S21), as attached here (vertical scale: Amplitude (dB); horizontal scale: frequency):
(The numbering convention for S-parameters is that the first number following the “S” is the port where the signal emerges, and the second number is the port where the signal is applied. S21 is a measure of the signal coming out port 2 relative to the RF stimulus entering port 1: the ratio of transmitted to incident voltage signals.
S21 is the forward complex transmission coefficient)
It is apparent that the comparison from this COMSOL analysis to the actual results is not that great...
-
#1205
by
raketa
on 01 Oct, 2014 17:52
-
I was suggesting first to proof/disproof in space, because lot of people thinking this is good idea, why we didn't try to make it happen.
I am putting my money where my mouth is ready to pledge initial $1000 for this project.
1/Could we contact professor Dr Woodward if he will be interesting to participate and build his apparatus for space environment.
2/We have to find who will do crowdsourcing for us. Does anybody have experience or could recommend it somebody who has good reputation. . .
An in space demo is a TRL7 demo. Woodward is at TRL5 right now. Before you go to space, what you want is a phase 1, TRL6 demo that is very close to the commercial grade thruster you'd use for phase 2, TRL7--meaning similar in magnitude thrust (20 mN is fine if the FOM's are good), Figures of Merit (FOM's) for thrust to mass and thrust to power that can fly a spacecraft, thermal stability such that the thruster will work continuously in space where only black body radiation (T^4) can be used for cooling, and of course the continuous operation. Woodward is currently a long way from these things, but these are the things I'm currently looking to finance through a DARPA grant if I can find the proper Principle Investigator. Anyone who wants the job should let me know. We already have a basic design that should meet all these above criteria. PhD's in physics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering and materials science will be considered.
Note we're planning to run a concurrent project to develop our own proprietary radiation hardening technology that will allow all future spacecraft to fly through the Van Allen Belt undamaged. Plasma physicists or anyone who thinks they have the qualifications for that project should likewise feel free to contact me.
Woodward is working on some crowdsourcing at present, but note that he is only concerned with proof of science, not proof of technology as this above. He's not looking at a TRL7 demo while we're planning around one. Note too that in-space demos are very expensive. You not only can't do them on a hobby budget; you can't do them on a crowdsourcing budget. It is millions of dollars to loft a spacecraft to LEO unless you use a nanosat, in which case you might get the launch for free, but you'll then have to pay for some expensive miniaturization, so its millions of dollars either way.
Hi Ron,
it is awesome that there is plan. What do you think to try to partner with Spacex and use Dragon trunk for carrying device. If we could use power input from Dragon solar panels, how much space and weight you need to occupate without miniaturization.
Thank you
Jan
-
#1206
by
Ron Stahl
on 01 Oct, 2014 18:04
-
What you're describing is one of 5 plans in progress for the DARPA grant process.
DARPA grants are very odd compared to other grants because they require the whole TRL process. They generally cover TRL6 and 7 in 2 phases, but they require the TRL-1-5 history, the phase 1 TRL6 plan in detail, the follow on TRL7 plan in detail (though they expect changes after phase 1), the plan for the jump to TRL8 commercialization including whom will build the product and a market analysis of who would pay for it. What you're taking about is part of the TRL9 analysis, which is to provide Dragon with an M-E trunk that can take it to the Moon and Mars. This is one of 5 early "low thrust" applications, but the trunk needs to be completely refitted so this is not a cheap nor simple issue.
What is cheap is to catch a free ride to orbit for a nanosat, but this still requires miniaturization. And really you don't want to send stuff to orbit without paying for that step because that is the step where radiation hardening takes place, and where the actual FOM's for future spacecraft with all their working systems come from. You want the grant to pay for the miniaturization so you have it ready to go to market. In our case, miniaturization does not happen until phase 2/TRL7, but this is quite normal and the electrical engineering for this can be shopped out to literally dozens of places so there is little challenge there save how it affects delivery times of other portions of the project.
-
#1207
by
Ron Stahl
on 01 Oct, 2014 19:53
-
. . .my feeling (as an average mainstream science educated person somehow following the topic) is that the various teams involved in experiments are choosing the wrong methodology and should follow some guidelines for fundamental research experimentalists
I'm sorry but that's not true at all. Obviously, you have not read the book.
please produce a complete detailed description of one single self contained airtight device, thermally isolated, energetically isolated, electromagnetically shielded, that is reproducible and will guarantee anyone caring to follow the instructions to observe a thrust/power effect better than 1/c for a few seconds
While I understand and appreciate what you're trying to do, all i can say in few words is, you are putting out criteria that are unreasonable and unnecessary. In the words of Dr. Dennis Bushnell, NASA's Chief Scientist and point man for all propulsion and power exploration like these, the reason NASA is not biting is that they don't have anyone able to judge the theory. The experimental setup is not the trouble. Since they cannot do a real evaluation of theory, what they've asked for is more thrust, which is what Jim is working on. Rumor is, Stennis, JPL, Glenn and one of the National Labs are all considering replications of the Eagle work, and this all from a little conference paper! That's quite a reaction! And let me note again, that when you are not familiar with the details of what has been published on this subject, to complain there has not be what you want published, is a little silly. Read Woodward's book. It's a fascinating read meant for engineers. I promise it is fun or I owe you a beer.
So far my feeling is that the "propellantless propulsion proponents" are doing a really great job at NOT convincing an (admittedly already reluctant) mainstream science community that there is any effect at all.
Agreed, but those who
have read the book are starting to make their sentiments known. Sometimes these things take time. The book is not even 2 years old.
But it seems strange to me (and my guess to a majority of scientists and engineers), if effect is real then it is worth fundamental physics methodology, not necessarily billions $ but at least complete open access to blueprints, complete experimental datafiles (including preliminary adjustments and settings) and not just snapshots of a few screens. . .
All of Woodward's data has been given to Creon Levit, NASA's main comp guy at Ames. Also this summer, Woodward upgraded his instrumentation to Labview, so the data will be easier to obtain and digest in the future. I believe that data acquisition system goes online in just another week or so.
. . .can't they dump the raw values of those instruments on some disk?
As noted, all what you're asking for save the self-contained issue has previously been addressed, and you should not presume Eagle hasn't done the same. NASA has its own analysts and they don't need unpaid peanut galleries to make decisions. Nothing against this forum, but online engineering forums are notoriously ill-mannered and dysfunctional when it comes to real analysis. You should not expect to see that kind of thing here. Dennis and Creon are top notch guys. Sometimes you just need to wait for the hammer to fall.
-
#1208
by
Rodal
on 01 Oct, 2014 19:57
-
Ron, I'm new to this site, but it is my impression is that it would help if you would also include the author of the quotes that you are quoting above (
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1265094#msg1265094 ), otherwise:
1) The author of the quotes is not going to get a message that you are addressing what he/she wrote
2) The readers may infer wrong inferences as to who is the author of the quote
-
#1209
by
Ron Stahl
on 01 Oct, 2014 20:02
-
I'll do what I can but my time here is very limited today. I'm only barely keeping up. as is.
-
#1210
by
Rodal
on 01 Oct, 2014 20:06
-
I'll do what I can but my time here is very limited today. I'm only barely keeping up. as is.
Well you may want to consider specifying who is the author of the quotes you are quoting, particularly when you write things like: << NASA has its own analysts and they don't need unpaid peanut galleries to make decisions. Nothing against this forum, but online engineering forums are notoriously ill-mannered and dysfunctional when it comes to real analysis. >>
-
#1211
by
birchoff
on 01 Oct, 2014 20:07
-
What you're describing is one of 5 plans in progress for the DARPA grant process.
DARPA grants are very odd compared to other grants because they require the whole TRL process. They generally cover TRL6 and 7 in 2 phases, but they require the TRL-1-5 history, the phase 1 TRL6 plan in detail, the follow on TRL7 plan in detail (though they expect changes after phase 1), the plan for the jump to TRL8 commercialization including whom will build the product and a market analysis of who would pay for it. What you're taking about is part of the TRL9 analysis, which is to provide Dragon with an M-E trunk that can take it to the Moon and Mars. This is one of 5 early "low thrust" applications, but the trunk needs to be completely refitted so this is not a cheap nor simple issue.
What is cheap is to catch a free ride to orbit for a nanosat, but this still requires miniaturization. And really you don't want to send stuff to orbit without paying for that step because that is the step where radiation hardening takes place, and where the actual FOM's for future spacecraft with all their working systems come from. You want the grant to pay for the miniaturization so you have it ready to go to market. In our case, miniaturization does not happen until phase 2/TRL7, but this is quite normal and the electrical engineering for this can be shopped out to literally dozens of places so there is little challenge there save how it affects delivery times of other portions of the project.
Hold tha damn phone.
Am I correct in my interpretation that you or some group of people you know is actively attempting to Sheppard Woodward's work all the way through to commercialization?
?
-
#1212
by
birchoff
on 01 Oct, 2014 20:14
-
I'll do what I can but my time here is very limited today. I'm only barely keeping up. as is.
Well you may want to consider specifying who is the author of the quotes you are quoting, particularly when you write things like: << NASA has its own analysts and they don't need unpaid peanut galleries to make decisions. Nothing against this forum, but online engineering forums are notoriously ill-mannered and dysfunctional when it comes to real analysis. >>
Don't know about anyone else, but I would assume your quote of Ron is his personal opinion. Even though I tend to agree with him on this issue. While I appreciate the forum and the participation to date. My strong suspicion is that outside of Woodward's mailing list, we will not get any more information about these type of propulsion devices till Another paper or set of results is published. I think the EagleWork's guys are only concerned with answering to their source of funding and the respective NASA officials that they have to report to.
I think the biggest value of this thread so far is that your [Rodal] attempt at breaking down what has been reported so far has forced people with some more knowledge than what is easily available to find their way here.
-
#1213
by
Ron Stahl
on 01 Oct, 2014 20:21
-
I'll do what I can but my time here is very limited today. I'm only barely keeping up. as is.
Well you may want to consider specifying who is the author of the quotes you are quoting, particularly when you write things like: << NASA has its own analysts and they don't need unpaid peanut galleries to make decisions. Nothing against this forum, but online engineering forums are notoriously ill-mannered and dysfunctional when it comes to real analysis. >>
Don't know about anyone else, but I would assume your quote of Ron is his personal opinion. Even though I tend to agree with him on this issue. While I appreciate the forum and the participation to date. My strong suspicion is that outside of Woodward's mailing list, we will not get any more information about these type of propulsion devices till Another paper or set of results is published. I think the EagleWork's guys are only concerned with answering to their source of funding and the respective NASA officials that they have to report to.
I think the biggest value of this thread so far is that your [Rodal] attempt at breaking down what has been reported so far has forced people with some more knowledge than what is easily available to find their way here.
Yes, that was my opinion he quoted. And I'm sorry if that truth seems to annoy but it is the truth. NASA does not consult engineering forums like these when they make decisions. In fact, I have several times advised Dr. Bushnell what forums like this are saying and doing as I think it's worth knowing. Dennis does what I used to do back when I was working for the Advanced Aerospace Research Center and we have compared notes on more than one occasion. He certainly does not need to hear what goes on in places like this but he does listen, and as I've already noted, anyone who has been around a few years on one or more of these boards knows how opinionated and predictable these forums are.
-
#1214
by
birchoff
on 01 Oct, 2014 20:26
-
Hold tha damn phone.
Am I correct in my interpretation that you or some group of people you know is actively attempting to Sheppard Woodward's work all the way through to commercialization??
Yes.
And where can a space geek go to keep abreast of such developments?
-
#1215
by
Rodal
on 01 Oct, 2014 20:26
-
I'll do what I can but my time here is very limited today. I'm only barely keeping up. as is.
Well you may want to consider specifying who is the author of the quotes you are quoting, particularly when you write things like: << NASA has its own analysts and they don't need unpaid peanut galleries to make decisions. Nothing against this forum, but online engineering forums are notoriously ill-mannered and dysfunctional when it comes to real analysis. >>
Don't know about anyone else, but I would assume your quote of Ron is his personal opinion. Even though I tend to agree with him on this issue. While I appreciate the forum and the participation to date. My strong suspicion is that outside of Woodward's mailing list, we will not get any more information about these type of propulsion devices till Another paper or set of results is published. I think the EagleWork's guys are only concerned with answering to their source of funding and the respective NASA officials that they have to report to.
I think the biggest value of this thread so far is that your [Rodal] attempt at breaking down what has been reported so far has forced people with some more knowledge than what is easily available to find their way here.
Hi @birchoff,
I am not the author of the quotes that Ron has quoted, otherwise I would answer them.
I do find Ron's assertion (
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1265094#msg1265094) that <<NASA has its own analysts and they don't need unpaid peanut galleries to make decisions>> out of place and offensive to this forum. This NASASpaceFlightForum has well motivated scientists and engineers attracted to the implications of this technology and just trying to ascertain the physics behind it (whether a real physical effect or artifact). I do see Ron's assertions above as questioning this NASASpaceFlightForum, which in my opinion has among the highest quality involvement and a very rich theory of positive contributions .
Ron, has further compounded this with his latest charge (
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1265109#msg1265109) that << There is always a handful of people who want to prove how bright they are, even if while doing this they prove they're willing to judge work they're unfamiliar with.
It's pretty funny, actually.>>
-
#1216
by
Ron Stahl
on 01 Oct, 2014 20:32
-
Dr. Rodal, I agree with your opinion of the guys posting in this forum. Can I presume you agree that you, amongst others here, have posted now quite a few opinions about work you're not familiar with, and thus validate my observation that these forums do indeed do what I'm saying they do?
And it is funny. :-) And you can find the same at Talk Polywell, and Next Big Future and Physics.org and Phys.org, etc.
-
#1217
by
Rodal
on 01 Oct, 2014 20:38
-
Dr. Rodal, I agree with your opinion of the guys posting in this forum. Can I presume you agree that you, amongst others here, have posted now quite a few opinions about work you're not familiar with, and thus validate my observation that these forums do indeed do what I'm saying they do?
And it is funny. :-) And you can find the same at Talk Polywell, and Next Big Future and Physics.org and Phys.org, etc.
You are incorrect. I have only commented about the
specific papers I have read and I have made that clear in my posts,
including links and explicit quotations.
-
#1218
by
Ron Stahl
on 01 Oct, 2014 20:49
-
Do people get a sense of a moving goal post ? . When experiments do not show the predicted effect, multiplicative fudge factors ranging from 0 to 1, such that for a value of zero there is no Woodward effect, are proposed by Buldrini. No estimation is presented of what the value of the fudge factors should be.
Now a new condition is added that the effect won't manifest itself unless the drive is simultaneously accelerated by external power. When did this condition first appear in Woodward's publications?
What magnitude of “bulk” acceleration is large enough according to Woodward?
It is elucidating that we get now a recognition by Woodward that:
<<simply charging and discharging capacitors will not produce mass fluctuations. >>
This effectively recognizes that solely replacing fluctuations in the rest energy by the fluctuations in the electric power input to a capacitor is not just "overly optimistic" but invalid. See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1260795#msg1260795 He now adds the extra condition that the device needs to be simultaneously accelerated to an unspecified large enough “bulk” acceleration. The new experimental setup used by Woodward involves the linear (in voltage) piezoelectric effect and the quadratic (in voltage) electrostrictive effect in a stack of PZT disc capacitors.
This above, Dr. Rodel; was brought to my attention in another forum, because you are here slandering a good man and accusing him of moving the goal posts, saying the predicted effect didn't show up, using fudge factors when in fact no thrust magnitude prediction had been made for good reason, and of creating "new conditions" when in fact these conditions are in the peer reviewed literature going back almost 20 years now. If I'm wrong and you've been unusually restrained you have my apology but it looks like you're acting very typically for this sort of venue.
-
#1219
by
francesco nicoli
on 01 Oct, 2014 20:49
-
quite funny indeed. I always believed that rational choice decision making would push someone who believes that a certain activity is meaningless, conduced by uniformed people, on a non-interesting platform, not to participate in any of the activities of that uninteresting platform.
Here however we have a clear demonstration of how rational choice theory often fails. It is always complicate to justify rationally the behaviour of individuals wasting their time to say "there is nothing to say here because you are all wrong and uninteresting".
?