Author Topic: Quantum vacuum plasma thruster (Q-thruster)  (Read 15331 times)

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 929
  • Liked: 668
  • Likes Given: 69
Quantum vacuum plasma thruster (Q-thruster)
« on: 11/07/2013 02:21 AM »
I'm watching this year's 100YSS conference videos, on the 3rd day there's a some very interesting discussion about FTL drives, and Dr. White mentioned they are also working on Q-thruster, which is very interesting, since among all the pie in the sky exotic propulsion ideas, this one seems to be the most further along. Too bad he run out of time so there's no Q&A, but I'm just wondering, did they actually detected thrust from the test articles? He also mentioned doing testing for industry partners, not sure if it's for Q-thruster, are there already companies building these?

I checked the papers referenced in Wikipedia, but they seem to be fairly old.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1336
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Quantum vacuum plasma thruster (Q-thruster)
« Reply #1 on: 11/07/2013 08:31 AM »
well White's QVPT thing is exciting. but it is not alone by any means. first off; i am sure that any moment someone will be along to state emphatically that White's QVPT is" stolen from" Woodward's own ideas. You can take that at face value or you can say that it is only similar to Woodward's ideas because the idea is found in common physics. physics held in common between the two ideas.

and then there is a certain Egyptian girl who has proposed something similar and even has prospects of her device being launched into space for satellite maneuvering systems.

http://gizmodo.com/5914102/awesome-teenager-invents-a-new-form-of-quantum-space-travel

White seems to be saying that the initial sub newton thrust can be developed eventually into something that gets 4 newtons and can get to nearby stars in about three decades of travel time. i find that very interesting.
« Last Edit: 11/07/2013 08:35 AM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Quantum vacuum plasma thruster (Q-thruster)
« Reply #2 on: 11/07/2013 09:30 AM »
The "Q-Thruster" is Sonny White's take on Jim Woodward's Mach-effect thruster, with an alternate explanation of how it works, using quantum mechanics as opposed to general relativity.  This can be a somewhat contentious subject among proponents; Woodward doesn't think much of the QVF approach, and one rather outspoken Mach-effect booster has actually accused White of fraud...

Paul March got mN-range thrusts a while back with high-frequency Mach-Lorentz test articles, but his experiments weren't well controlled and he doesn't trust them.  I believe one of his devices was repurposed as a Q-thruster, but I don't know of any new results out of Eagleworks.  Woodward himself has managed to obtain repeatable results that seem to track his theory quite well, though the signals are still small.  Recent cosmological observations also seem to corroborate the theoretical underpinnings of the Mach-effect derivation.

On the other hand, White's approach supposedly predicts thrust from a Shawyer EmDrive, while Woodward's does not.  It is generally acknowledged that Shawyer's explanation of his invention makes no sense, but that doesn't necessarily mean the invention itself doesn't work.  IIRC multiple parties have reported thrust from EmDrives, and not all of them are in China...

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3611
  • Liked: 512
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Quantum vacuum plasma thruster (Q-thruster)
« Reply #3 on: 11/07/2013 10:19 AM »
The way good science can function with evidence very near the noise level is to have a theory that makes a precise prediction.

If one group claims a value (in whatever units) of say 1.2, and another claims to have observed 12, thats not ten times better, its a fail. At best one of them is wrong and the other is left uncorroborated.

If a theory predicts 1.234 and different experiments keep hovering around this result then it can't be noise any more. It could be another phenomenon that happens to predict the same outcome but that would be pretty bad luck. It could be a conspiracy of fraud of course, but that doesn't matter because a small groups's corroboration is not proof, it is just reason enough for a slightly larger audience to pay attention and so on. There would probably soon be rioting physicists in the street overturning cars and throwing Molotov cocktails at police.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Quantum vacuum plasma thruster (Q-thruster)
« Reply #4 on: 11/07/2013 08:05 PM »
Not sure what you're trying to say here.  You're being way too oblique.
« Last Edit: 11/07/2013 08:12 PM by 93143 »

Offline simonbp

Re: Quantum vacuum plasma thruster (Q-thruster)
« Reply #5 on: 11/07/2013 08:31 PM »
If one group claims a value (in whatever units) of say 1.2, and another claims to have observed 12, thats not ten times better, its a fail. At best one of them is wrong and the other is left uncorroborated.

In general, it's more complicated than that. With a low signal-to-noise measurement, even the best analysis can still be orders of magnitude off, because things with low signal-to-noise are in general poorly understood. It's a pretty common problem in astronomy, where all the theoretical models are extreme simplifications that only work on a statistically large number of objects.

That said, any of these Q thrusters (or similar) are going to need much higher signal-to-noise thrust measurements before they gain enough credence to spend real resources on them.
« Last Edit: 11/07/2013 08:32 PM by simonbp »

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Quantum vacuum plasma thruster (Q-thruster)
« Reply #6 on: 11/11/2013 04:44 AM »
I don't think it's the S/N that's the problem.  Woodward at least is well above the noise floor, repeatably (and tracking theory pretty well too, last I heard).  I think the signals are still small enough that skeptics have a hard time believing that the results couldn't possibly be anything other than what Woodward says they are, and simple paradigm inertia does the rest.

Obligatory disclaimer:  I'm not saying Woodward is right.  I'm just describing my impression of how his work strikes the larger community.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2013 07:30 AM by 93143 »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3611
  • Liked: 512
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Quantum vacuum plasma thruster (Q-thruster)
« Reply #7 on: 11/11/2013 08:32 AM »
If one group claims a value (in whatever units) of say 1.2, and another claims to have observed 12, thats not ten times better, its a fail. At best one of them is wrong and the other is left uncorroborated.

In general, it's more complicated than that. With a low signal-to-noise measurement, even the best analysis can still be orders of magnitude off, because things with low signal-to-noise are in general poorly understood. It's a pretty common problem in astronomy, where all the theoretical models are extreme simplifications that only work on a statistically large number of objects.

That said, any of these Q thrusters (or similar) are going to need much higher signal-to-noise thrust measurements before they gain enough credence to spend real resources on them.
My example was deliberately exaggerated and simplified. My point was that it is more than just getting above the signal to noise. I was trying to explain the almost necessity of having a clear unambiguous prediction.

(A prediction about stars could be clear and unambiguous even if the prediction is expressed in terms of averages.)

I think many people don't understand why some accepted science is based on incredibly subtle phenomena, such as the detection of neutrinos or new particles that takes months of observation, whereas experiments in this field can claim much larger results, even useful levels of thrust, and still not gain credibility. They think it is bigotry.

You can get a measurement a thousand times above the noise level and it is still totally reasonable that you have just screwed up. You can find and remove ten such screw ups and what remains could still be a screw up. If you are hitting an accurate prediction, 'its just a screw up' suddenly is not a simpler and just as accurate explanation.



Offline Supergravity

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Quantum vacuum plasma thruster (Q-thruster)
« Reply #8 on: 11/29/2013 03:27 AM »
Mind linking these videos? As far as I know and after extensive looking, there are no videos that have been posted of the 100 year starship symposium (and it will likely cost something to view it, given the general behavior of the organization). Are you talking about Icarus Interstellar and the Starship Congress?

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
  • Liked: 188
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Quantum vacuum plasma thruster (Q-thruster)
« Reply #9 on: 12/04/2013 01:19 PM »
Well, Dr Sonny White talked exactly on the 3rd day of Starship Congress from Icarus Interstellar, so that would make me think he is talking about that... however, he posted the message in 11th july, and Icarus Interstellar Starship Congress happened in August!


ah, forget. He posted it at 11th November. I always get confused with the american mm/dd/yy dating system. Quite counterintuitive imho.
« Last Edit: 12/04/2013 01:21 PM by aceshigh »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
  • Liked: 188
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Quantum vacuum plasma thruster (Q-thruster)
« Reply #10 on: 12/24/2013 07:48 PM »
new video by Dr Sonny White...

I didnīt count, but I would say 2/3 of the video are about the Warp Drive, but a full 1/3 is about Q-Thrusters, including White saying they got some interesting results from their Q-Thrusters with specific force of 0.75 to 20 N per kiloWatt...

he starts talking about Q-Thrusters around the 30 minute mark


Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 831
  • Liked: 152
  • Likes Given: 165
Re: Quantum vacuum plasma thruster (Q-thruster)
« Reply #11 on: 12/26/2013 04:18 AM »
I don't think it's the S/N that's the problem.  Woodward at least is well above the noise floor, repeatably (and tracking theory pretty well too, last I heard).  I think the signals are still small enough that skeptics have a hard time believing that the results couldn't possibly be anything other than what Woodward says they are, and simple paradigm inertia does the rest.

Obligatory disclaimer:  I'm not saying Woodward is right.  I'm just describing my impression of how his work strikes the larger community.
So sad that the disclaimer is necessary in order to be taken seriously! My impression of the credibility issue with Woodward's experiments is the lack of repeat-ability, at least proven. Here I'm speaking specifically of the issue of inconsistent results from different devices, not just the experimental setup and performer.

Actually it's a multitude of issues that in the end add up to a consistency and repeat-ability issues:
1) different devices of the supposed same construction producing different results
2) the same device with changing results over time (that Woodward ascribes to heat relaxation changing harmonics of the capacitor/piezo crystal.)
3) none of the devices giving a straight-forward 'as predicted' thrust.
4) inability to scale up the results despite supposedly understanding what is required to do so.

Now let me give my disclaimer that I actually think the physics make sense--but the experimental results are so marginal when taken with the proper perspective...

Of course no one actually knows yet what's going on exactly in Eagleworks lab...

Tags: