-
#520 by ThinkerX on 13 Sep, 2014 23:20
-
I am a fascinated lay observer of this topic.
Over the past few years, I have read a couple of articles and books mentioning 'Dark Matter,' asserting this substance must out-mass (?) conventional matter by something on the order of four or five to one. Purportedly, this Dark Matter interacts with the rest of the universe only gravitationally. Could this 'Q Thruster' be somehow interacting Dark Matter? Or is Dark Matter one and the same with the 'Quantum Vacuum?'
Also, I remember reading mention many years ago that what started the interest in this type of space drive came a as a result of investigating disruptions in the orbits of satellites using microwave devices - the conventional onboard thrusters were having to fire more often to keep the satellites in place. Any truth to that? Star Drive? Rodal? Anybody else? -
#521 by Rodal on 13 Sep, 2014 23:39
-
@ThinkerX
1) <<is Dark Matter one and the same with the 'Quantum Vacuum?'>> No, not at all. They are not related. See this link for virtual particles and the quantum vacuum: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/ .
2) We have "known" about Dark Matter for some time (1930's) because its existence is needed to justify the observed gravitational effects responsible for the orbital velocities of stars in our galaxy and the orbital velocities of galaxies in galaxy clusters.
3) <<Could this 'Q Thruster' be somehow interacting Dark Matter?>> that is NOT the explanation put forth by the principal NASA researcher (Dr. White), nor by Prof. Woodward, or anybody else I know of. Since it has been difficult to detect dark matter (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Detection) I personally think that it is unlikely that dark matter would be responsible for the observed experimental effects.
4) As you may gather from this forum, "opinions" abound. Groups form just as for example it happens when dealing with any controversial subject like global warming, with "climos" and "detractors" taking positions early on and debating each other. We need to strive to put on our "scientists" hats, as in the peer-review process, with an open but exacting mind, and examine carefully the experimental results and the different models (equations if possible) put forth to justify the experimental results.
-
#522 by JohnFornaro on 14 Sep, 2014 01:33
-
Dr . Woodward ... it is a radiation reaction interaction, presumably, that involves the Wheeler-Feynman ...
Mr. Woodward does not answer any questions at all by saying "presumably".
Yes Dr. Woodward clearly said "presumably" (in the video I referenced)
Glad we agree. No questions are "answered" by "presumably", nor by ignoring the body of Mr. Woodwared's work. But hey. -
#523 by JohnFornaro on 14 Sep, 2014 01:33
-
Now, missions to Saturn in 286 days?
Thought it was 788. Never was good with numbers.QuoteSizzle, schmizzle...
Well, remember they're selling the sizzle, not the steak, and many other people, some actual scientists included, are asking, 'where's the beef?'
[quote-GoatGuy]But Goat, the Mach Woodward is deflecting the intertial energy of the Universe, not unlike how a sailboat's sails are harvesting energy from the passing wind...[/quote]
Fix your quotes. 'Tweren't me what sed dat.
-
#524 by JohnFornaro on 14 Sep, 2014 01:33
-
To get a... well, obvious question out of the way, if the effect is real, and is predicted to scale up, why not build a 33 kilowatt device, place it on an old fashioned weighing scale, and wow the world with a whole pound of thrust?
Shhhhh. -
#525 by birchoff on 14 Sep, 2014 05:09
-
To get a... well, obvious question out of the way, if the effect is real, and is predicted to scale up, why not build a 33 kilowatt device, place it on an old fashioned weighing scale, and wow the world with a whole pound of thrust?
Shhhhh.
There is no conspiracy here, They just havent not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the effect is real. A nice way of characterizing these developments is like seeing smoke rising on the horizon. We would like to believe it is fire but we most investigate (experiment) to find out if our gut feeling is accurate. -
#526 by birchoff on 14 Sep, 2014 05:27
-
@PaulMarch
Not sure if you will be able to answer this or not but, are there any plans for EagleWorks to carry out tests on Woodward's M-E devices?
@birchoff
See this paper by Paul March, Fig.7 and Fig.8, p.1330:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31119.0;attach=496011
FIGURE 7. Woodward’s Mach-2MHz MLT Test Article, vxB core & March’s Test Stand.
FIGURE 8. Mach-2MHz MLT Test Results - Predicted Thrust is 1.3 / 5.0 Milligram-Force.
and this paper by Dr. White, slide 40:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf
It appears from this that Paul March's/Dr.Woodward's device is the one tested in the 2005 campaign shown by Dr. White giving:
Thrust ~ 3 mN
Specific Force ~ 0.3 N/kW
@Rodal
Thanks for the pointers. I was looking for that deck that you linked to on NTRS. I believe Dr. White used it in a presentation I saw this year. Anyway, the most interesting thing about that deck is it seems like there is mounting evidence that there really is something here. Though what I really wonder about is if the Boeing SFE test article had such good results, what happened to it? are there any future plans for further testing on that particular design. I cannot seem to find any information via google or NTRS documenting the test campaign that Boeing device is said to be apart of. I hope it is not covered by NDA...
-
#527 by RotoSequence on 14 Sep, 2014 05:30
-
To get a... well, obvious question out of the way, if the effect is real, and is predicted to scale up, why not build a 33 kilowatt device, place it on an old fashioned weighing scale, and wow the world with a whole pound of thrust?
Shhhhh.
There is no conspiracy here, They just havent not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the effect is real. A nice way of characterizing these developments is like seeing smoke rising on the horizon. We would like to believe it is fire but we most investigate (experiment) to find out if our gut feeling is accurate.
Star-Drive's been working on this stuff for years, and has built said devices himself, and he seems to be beyond a shadow of a doubt that these devices are real. High power transmitters aren't especially complex devices, and with how long everyone's been fiddling with them, it seems like it would be an effective use of time and money to build a machine that can demonstrate the effect to the naked eye, even if it wasn't useful for anything else. -
#528 by Star One on 14 Sep, 2014 08:40
-
To get a... well, obvious question out of the way, if the effect is real, and is predicted to scale up, why not build a 33 kilowatt device, place it on an old fashioned weighing scale, and wow the world with a whole pound of thrust?
Shhhhh.
There is no conspiracy here, They just havent not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the effect is real. A nice way of characterizing these developments is like seeing smoke rising on the horizon. We would like to believe it is fire but we most investigate (experiment) to find out if our gut feeling is accurate.
Star-Drive's been working on this stuff for years, and has built said devices himself, and he seems to be beyond a shadow of a doubt that these devices are real. High power transmitters aren't especially complex devices, and with how long everyone's been fiddling with them, it seems like it would be an effective use of time and money to build a machine that can demonstrate the effect to the naked eye, even if it wasn't useful for anything else.
Why is that every time something like this appears that there is certain strand of belief online that they must have had these for years but kept them secret. It's a depressingly recurrent theme for cutting edge technology whatever the field and I don't know what it is says about scientific literacy in the public at large. -
#529 by RotoSequence on 14 Sep, 2014 08:47
-
Why is that every time something like this appears that there is certain strand of belief online that they must have had these for years but kept them secret. It's a depressingly recurrent theme for cutting edge technology whatever the field and I don't know what it is says about scientific literacy in the public at large.
I'm not asking why or claiming that he's keeping it secret. I'm asking why a larger one, which would (I hope) help demonstrate that EM drive technology is a real thing, hasn't been built yet.
-
#530 by Star One on 14 Sep, 2014 12:02
-
Why is that every time something like this appears that there is certain strand of belief online that they must have had these for years but kept them secret. It's a depressingly recurrent theme for cutting edge technology whatever the field and I don't know what it is says about scientific literacy in the public at large.
I'm not asking why or claiming that he's keeping it secret. I'm asking why a larger one, which would (I hope) help demonstrate that EM drive technology is a real thing, hasn't been built yet.
I wasn't really referring to your post just making a more general point.
Back on topic if this passes muster on further ground testing, would it at some point be considered for a tech demonstrator cubesat? -
#531 by JohnFornaro on 14 Sep, 2014 13:23
-
...why not build a 33 kilowatt device...
Shhhhh.
There is no conspiracy here...
And no sense of humor either. -
#532 by JohnFornaro on 14 Sep, 2014 13:57
-
To get a... well, obvious question out of the way, if the effect is real, and is predicted to scale up, why not build a 33 kilowatt device, place it on an old fashioned weighing scale, and wow the world with a whole pound of thrust?
Seriously, this time:
The cost and difficulty of scaling to that degree is prohibitive. -
#533 by JohnFornaro on 14 Sep, 2014 14:01
-
HSF. HSF? Ah... Human Space Flight. See... I'm a newbie.
No problemo. The acronym directory on this site misses some of the important ones: TLA, BFR, IDK...
-
#534 by JohnFornaro on 14 Sep, 2014 14:02
-
High power transmitters aren't especially complex devices, and with how long everyone's been fiddling with them, it seems like it would be an effective use of time and money to build a machine that can demonstrate the effect to the naked eye, even if it wasn't useful for anything else.
As I point out often, I've been to Arizona, and have a well developed sense of Yuma.
Anybody with both arms on the armchair would realize that scaling the device up to 33kW would be a huge undertaking.
As a BOE yardstick metric, consider the mass of the testing device with the expected forces to be demonstrated. While the ratio of device mass to detected force might very well decrease should a larger test device be devised, the cost of actually designing and manufacturing the device would require many more people and subcontractors on the team. So there's that.
Consider also the small vacuum chamber used in this setup. Larger ones are available, but again, costs would be larger too.
It's not the "complexity" of high power transmitters that is at point; it is rather the ability to reduce the spurious forces from the experimental setup. It certainly seems like this would be easier to do at a larger scale, but which larger scale? -
#535 by JohnFornaro on 14 Sep, 2014 14:05
-
...It's a depressingly recurrent theme for cutting edge technology whatever the field and I don't know what it is says about scientific literacy in the public at large.
For starters, take a quick vacation in Arizona. [Rolls eyes.]
For seconds, you're confusing the "public at large" with, in my case, a guy who has read, over the last five years, every last word on this topic as presented on this forum, who has downloaded and read every paper, and who has also supported the work by purchasing the author's publications, including Sciama, Ciufolini and Wheeler, and others. I have a readily detectable mass effect on my bookshelf at least.
Finally, for thirds, the "public at large" believes that warp drive is around the corner, thanks to misleading advertising.
It isn't.
You may not claim exlusive rights to the term "misleading advertising". The only promise that the propellantless propuslsion teams should be making, is that they can create a device which repeatably demonstrates that the forces do indeed exist and can be harnessed in practical applications.
No need to invoke the c-word.
As to the theory itself, which should also be discussed, there is this (again):But (again) I'm against a "what if it works" scenario that wont go to all the inescapable consequences, when the consequences are on firm ground that couldn't possibly be overtaken by the hypothesis.
-
#536 by Rodal on 14 Sep, 2014 15:19
-
@Rodal
Thanks for the pointers. I was looking for that deck that you linked to on NTRS. I believe Dr. White used it in a presentation I saw this year. Anyway, the most interesting thing about that deck is it seems like there is mounting evidence that there really is something here. Though what I really wonder about is if the Boeing SFE test article had such good results, what happened to it? are there any future plans for further testing on that particular design. I cannot seem to find any information via google or NTRS documenting the test campaign that Boeing device is said to be apart of. I hope it is not covered by NDA...
******************
Here I compare the experimentally measured Thrust Force and the Specific Force (defined as Thrust Force / Input Electric Power) for the different devices tested at NASA Eagleworks.
From this comparison it appears that the latest round of tested devices (the Cannae and the Fustrum Cavity) have among the lowest measured Thrust Force and the lowest Specific Force.
Since what we are looking for is the highest Thrust Force and the highest Specific Force possible, why is the latest discussion in this forum concentrating on the performance of the latest round of tested devices, when they appear to have among the lowest measured thrust forces and the lowest specific force ?
******************
Referring to slide 40 of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140000851.pdf:
The largest THRUST force measured is for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s microwave device:
16 to 170 mN
However, it also happens to have among the LOWEST Specific Force (in that slide, but still significantly higher than the specific forces measured in the latest round for the Cannae and Tapered Frustum cavity -see below):
0.02 to 0.4 N/kW
The largest SPECIFIC FORCE measured is for the Boeing/DARPA device:
1 to 20 N/kW but the upper range was produced only by an unexplained anomalous thrust (one out of 8 pulses)
the average thrust was 3N/kW
but (when compared with the Shawyer/SPR's device numbers above), with very small thrust force: 20 to 110 uN (again, the 110 uN is for one anomalous thrust force out of 8 pulses, the average of the other ones is 20 uN)
Also notice that Dr. White writes
<<The magnitude of the [Boeing/DARPA] thrust scaled approximately with the cube of the input voltage>>
and
<<The magnitude of the [Boeing/DARPA] thrust is dependent on the AC content of the turn-on and turn-off pulse>>
and I notice:
the Boeing/DARPA measurements show a sudden impulse of very short duration instead of the practically square pulses measured with the latest tested devices (Cannae and (Fustrum) Tapered Cavity).
It is NOT clear to me whether Dr. White is reporting on measurements his Eagleworks lab conducted on the Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device, or whether he is reporting measurements made elsewhere with the Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device.
////////////////
For the latest round of NASA Eagleworks measurements (in the paper "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum"):
Cannae Testing:
THRUST Force average: 40 uN
Specific Force: 0.0014 N/kW
______________________________
Tapered (Frustum) Cavity Testing:
THRUST Force average: 50 to 90 uN
Specific Force: 0.003 N/kW to 0.0054 N/kW
Where I obtained the "Specific Force" by dividing the Thrust Force by the Input Electric Power (for example, for the Tapered Cavity 16.9 Watts electric).
////////////////
Everybody: please take a look at this comparison, and provide some feedback as to why the latest discussion in this forum is concentrating on the performance of the latest round of tested devices, when they appear to have among the lowest measured thrust forces and the lowest specific force ?
Have I misinterpreted something in the above comparison?
If so, how is the Specific Force calculated in slide 40 of Dr. White's presentation in the above link and elsewhere in his papers?
Also notice that <<Figure 25. 2MW NEP (90t spacecraft) Crewed Titan/Enceladus Mission with 0.4N/kWe thrust to power>> in the "Anomalous thrust..." paper uses 0.4N/kW (compare this with the Boeing/DARPA figure given in slide 40 above, which is 1 to 20 N/kW). Of course I do understand that the Crewed Titan/Enceladus Mission must have assumed an amount of thrust much larger than the minute thrust measured at Eagleworks for the Boeing/DARPA device, and that must be also the object of your criticism (the assumption that the devices can be eventually scaled up to produce required thrust and specific forces)
-
#537 by cuddihy on 14 Sep, 2014 15:35
-
I have a readily detectable mass effect on my bookshelf at least.
Thread winner! Nice quip John.
As for the "why no cubesat test," so far I don't believe any of the testing of Eagleworks has been of steady-state devices, and when you factor in how much the power circuits would add to the mass, at current force levels you would need a lot of sustained thrust time to see an orbital mechanics effect from ground-based observation. -
#538 by Stormbringer on 14 Sep, 2014 16:43
-
Finally, for thirds, the "public at large" believes that warp drive is around the corner, thanks to misleading advertising.
It isn't.
Oh, i am not the public at large either. but i think warp drive or something of that general class of thing really is around the corner. not because the hard data warrants that perception. but because the trend of discovery seems to suggest it.
A decade or two ago you would find as close to absolute silence on the topic as possible. now there are papers on university experiments and experimental labs, commercial industry investigations such as boeing. Govt investigations such as NASA all using several different approaches and apparatuses. I have now seen solutions to Relativity maths that support the things. I have flat out seen Science (<---personification) begin to "admit" that Gravity and several forces are related. E'G; an article where Tajmar's experiment was discussed Revealed that GR predicts a coupling of gravity and magnetism or gravity and EM. At that point Tajmar and his results become secondary (good thing too) what became central to me was that GR actually says: Gravity and magnetism or EM are coupled, related and therefore interchangeable.
That's just one example. So lately science has been cooperating with my plans to obtain a star cruiser.
I have a media reporting rule of thumb about research and articles on research. if there is one article and then silence then the research will produce no fruit. if you have a later article well something could happen, maybe. but if you have three on the same topic over time then you will probable see fruit from it in the future. it works more often that it fails. that's what rule of thumb means. but i am optimistic. probably more than warranted. But i think that sooner rather than later someone will find the key and unlike fusion's timeline, one of these EM things or a similarly scientifcally disreputable thing will be reality. -
#539 by Rodal on 14 Sep, 2014 17:22
-
To put this comparison more bluntly:
Ratio of measurements for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device compared to Cannae's device:
THRUST FORCE: 400 to 4250 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's device
SPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power) : 14 to 286 times higher for Shawyer/SPR Ltd.'s device than for Cannae's device
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ratio of measurements for Boeing/DARPA's device compared to Cannae's device:
THRUST FORCE: 0.5 to 2.75 times higher for Boeing/DARPA's device than for Cannae's device
SPECIFIC FORCE ( Thrust Force / Input Electric Power): 714 to 14300 times higher for Boeing/DARPA's device than for Cannae's device
_____________________________________________________________________________
Since what we are looking for is the highest Thrust Force and the highest Specific Force possible, why is the latest discussion in this forum concentrating on the performance of the latest round of tested devices, when they appear to have among the lowest measured thrust forces and the lowest specific force ?
