paulmarch wrote:BTW, did you see the URL to Woodward's Stargate paper that I posted on Woodward's e-mail distribution?
Best,
Paul - how does one join that list?
Duane
GeeGee wrote:I think his attitude also has to do with Woodward debunking his meta-material approach. Jack seems takes this as a personal insult rather then simply an objective evaluation. I think a few weeks ago Jack said something to the effect of "If my meta-material approach doesn't work, then nothing will."
Odd. I enjoy being challenged and disproven. One gains insight, and capable intellectual playmates/opponents strengthen one's mind.
GeeGee wrote:After reading several ofJack's arguments and debates with Woodward, I'm seriously starting to suspect that he either does not want to understand mach effects or just likes to start arguments for fun. I mean, he still does not understand what phi is after Woodward has explained it dozens of times in e-mails.
I think Jack's motto in life is "if you don't agree with me, you're wrong."
GeeGee:
Exactly! And that is why I'm not responding to Jack anymore until he bothers to "listen" to what you told him, two or more times in a row.
BTW, did you see the URL to Woodward's Stargate paper that I posted on Woodward's e-mail distribution?
Best,
Thanks for the heads up. I still get the thread but I gave up on digging through the chaff to find the interesting stuff.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
You mentioned somewhere that in order to make Woodward's theory complete, that it needed to be finalized in tensor form by some willing mathematical physicists.
I'm not a mathematical physicist but Jim is open about the fact that there are portions of the theory that should be fleshed out in much more detail, just as with Einstein. The way science works is that the originator of a theory seldom works out all the implications. Science is generally a group effort, so it's not surprising that Jim's theory is in at least one way "incomplete". This doesn't mean one can't use it to make hypotheses, design experiments, etc. I think though, once we have whatever is acceptable as "concrete evidence" that hundreds of physicists will jump on the band wagon and start working out many implications. For instance, the ability to generate negative mass seems to imply we can build warp drives and wormhole generators, since both of these require negative mass. If Jim has worked at all on warp theory, he hasn't shared it with anyone. I suspect it will wait on future physicists (not too far future) to give us our first practical warp drives and wormhole travel.
Also while I'm here, let me share that Jim's current thrust magnitudes are up more than a factor this season. He's been busy moving his lab at Fullerton, but he's also now showing 12uN thrusts. Not bad for out-of-pocket science. His book explaining all the theory and practice is also now about 3/4 complete. I'd expect Springer to publish sometime in 2012.
Once the book is published, there is a strong likelihood that there will be many replications start up. I'm sure there are many people in this forum quite capable of such should they have an interest.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Out of curiousity, and I know this question is subjective to some point, but practically speak, at what thrust measurement should we say "Yeah, it works" exactly or that it's background/error?
Scott, I wish I could answer that. In my opinion, the thrusts are enough now to make that judgement. The real problem is that in order to understand what is sufficient thrust, or thrust to noise, etc., you have to invest yourself in many, many hours work just to understand the experimental setup. Places like NASA are not willing to so invest themselves.
NASA found one guy to examine Widom-Larsen theory, so they are on that issue and already filed for patent. They don't have the necessary field theorists to judge Jim's work, so their response is to call for higher thrusts and higher signal to noise. They don't have a magic number either. On top of all this, is you complicate the issue once you begin to demonstrate mastery. Flipping the force generation by both physically rotating the thruster on the balance, and by reversing the phase between the 1w and 2w signals, demonstrates mastery. Scaling experiments, do the same. Also, working as Jim does with a balance able to resolve nN thrusts or several orders magnitude below the noise or signal, helps grant some certitude. We can't get anyone at NASA to look at these numbers, probably because there is no one at NASA qualified to judge Jim's theory to begin with.
What I've continually suggested in light of this problem is to look for thrusts that rival commercial systems. The Hall thrusters used on the most expensive, high orbit satellites put out about 20 mN with a few hundred watts (I'd have to look up the exact power requirement.) Seems to me a no brainer that if we can generate thrusts within an order magnitude of Hall thrusters, with similar or probably much less demanding power requirement, and fabulously less mass, NASA would have no choice but to investigate.
Trouble is, 20 mN is not easy to do with no budget. . .
Just as way of example, to get higher thrusts, one avenue of approach is to use better ceramics. To make use of things like single crystal rather than sintered ceramics, the bulk crystal cannot have its electrodes simply epoxied on. Even if you can locate single crystal ceramics at personal finance prices (which I have), you then have to have the electrodes sputtered on and the ceramic polarized. Polarization is something those involved with this work can do in their labs, but sputtering is not. Suddenly, a few hundred dollars investment becomes a few thousand dollars, and you're out of reach for unfunded work.
This is the kind of trouble we see in this work constantly. The barriers to breakthrough, are often just a few thousand dollars--something even a smallish grant can overcome.
I hope that explains the frustration we involved in the M-E work struggle with daily.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
and what would be the "budget" needed for demonstrating micronewtons of thrust?
one million dollars? 10 million?
cant you guys find a tech-savy millionaire willing to invest in the tech? Be open about it: its high risk, but the costs are low and the return, IF it works, are unimaginable.
I don't think there is an honest way to say what is required for much larger thrusts. The work is still too experimental. One can certainly say, "it takes thus and such support to have this kind of result" if all you do is build larger thrusters that work with the same ceramics, frequency, etc. If you want to scale the work to new efficiency levels, you need to use new ceramics, new frequencies, etc.
But just to answer your question from my own perspective, micro-newton thrusts should not require more than a few thousand dollars materials investment. Maybe $10,000. If NASA bites on the latest grant proposal, we might see this sort of advance. Recognize though, if NASA or DARPA is funding, you need to pay all your labor. By law, people can't work for free when grant funded, so the grant is going to be 10X what a project requires with all volunteers. Even though one might see a breakthrough with $10,000 using volunteers, if you have federal funding and need to pay everyone, you automatically have to have a $100,00+ budget.
So much for federal funding.
As for private funding, Jim is not willing to go that route so far as I understand it. Since no private investors have stepped forward to fund these experiments, it's hard to predict what Jim would say in that event. Certain though, from my perspective, if an angel investor stepped forward and wanted to accelerate this research, $10,000 would be enough to fund the next generation of experiments.
It's staggering when one looks at the numbers, how cheap it would be to accelerate M-E research, unless hampered by governmental regulations.
I will however, leave this one hopeful note: Paul March is working at the new Eagleworks lab at JSC and intends to test some MLTs and UFG's this next year. If anyone besides Jim can generate significant results on next-to-no funding, it's Paul. Lets wait and see.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:For instance, the ability to generate negative mass seems to imply we can build warp drives and wormhole generators, since both of these require negative mass. If Jim has worked at all on warp theory, he hasn't shared it with anyone. I suspect it will wait on future physicists (not too far future) to give us our first practical warp drives and wormhole travel.
I think Jim has not tackled warp drives because at the moment, there are an insurmountable number of problems with them that will possibly prevent their creation. Horizons (causally disconnected regions of space-time) and the impossibility of FTL velocities due to instability and intense hawking radiation are but a few of them. If you do a search in the scientific literature for warp drives and wormholes, you'll notice that there are much more papers on wormholes. That is because the concept of wormholes is much older (dating back to Einstein-Rosen bridges), where as the warp drive metric is very new (published in 94'). I also think it's because physicists probably think wormholes are more realistic objects, comparatively.
Wormholes have problems, too. Namely, the problem of causality paradoxes, as they can in principle be used as time machines. Just talking about the possibility of breaking causality makes physicists want to faint, which is why many of them reject these exotic solutions as unphysical.
There is also the problem of navigation, which I hardly ever hear discussed in published papers. If you create a wormhole entrance, where does the exit portal pop up? In a distant point in space, or in another universe? Do you need to create the other end? How do you connect them?
This is discussed a bit in this fantastic little book I found on the subject
There may also be a problem with Jim's approach to getting negative mass (the negative bare mass ADM solution). Namely, there is no guarantee that the bare masses of electrons are actually negative in a physically meaningful way. They may be a result of faulty mathematical formulation, as some physicists believe. I hope this is not the case. We'll just have to wait and see what experiments say.
All concerns noted, but if indeed Jim Woodward's physics enables wormhole generators, then we can build them, look through and see if they work. Steering them is certainly the work of future physicists, but whether we can build them at all certainly relies upon whether Jim's physics is correct.
I heartedly propose anyone interested, buy the book when Jim publishes through Springer (no shabby publisher) this next year. Then we can start to talk about the intricacies of steering a wormhole through space and time.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:
Just as way of example, to get higher thrusts, one avenue of approach is to use better ceramics. To make use of things like single crystal rather than sintered ceramics, the bulk crystal cannot have its electrodes simply epoxied on. Even if you can locate single crystal ceramics at personal finance prices (which I have), you then have to have the electrodes sputtered on and the ceramic polarized. Polarization is something those involved with this work can do in their labs, but sputtering is not. Suddenly, a few hundred dollars investment becomes a few thousand dollars, and you're out of reach for unfunded work.
The materials science is the key issue with M-E effect. BaTiO3 in multicrystal form is not the ideal material for this application. Also, this is a high stress application. Single crystal ceramic would be better. Another possibility is if a high-k polymer dielectric is possible, which would handle the stress a lot better. Either material option requires that the high k material be developed specifically for M-E application. This, in turn, costs money. There are people working on what are called colossal dielectric materials (dielectric constant > 30,000) for energy storage applications. Some of these materials have promise. But they still have stability problems at high temperatures and tend not to last long.
Kurt, I've been tracking this stuff for more than half a decade. I have a decent education on dielectric elastomers. They don't generally have k values even close to those of perovskite structures.
IMHO, traditional ceramics are better use than polymers.
If you have some notions that make this observation wrong or obsolete, please write me privately. I'm very interested in your findings.
What I've been proposing for next get iterations is single crystal BaTiO3 or in other force generators that can manage only 2w electromechanical action, PMN-PT.
Please do write me. I'm very interested to hear what you have to say.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
ScottL wrote:Out of curiousity, and I know this question is subjective to some point, but practically speak, at what thrust measurement should we say "Yeah, it works" exactly or that it's background/error?
To add to what GIThruster said, Jim's experimental protocol is exemplary. He exhaustively goes through every possible source of error in the experiment and finds a way to test for it. An idle observer may get the impression that he's actually trying to his darnedest to suppress any observation of the effect.
The thrust balance he's using can resolve thrusts in the nano-newton range. So far, he's measured thrusts in the micro-newton range and has seen evidence of scaling behavior. It's a good sign that there may indeed be something real here, when elimination of spurious sources is taken into account. All the criticisms I have seen of Woodward's work is aimed towards the theory (which are often gross misunderstandings, by the way), but I've never seen anyone criticize his experimental work.
Its a promise. If I win the lotto, I will support ME research.
Now seriously (cuz I will never win the lotto, not because I wont support ME research in the unlikely event I win it), best of luck to you guys.
I too find you guys work serious and deserving of recognition, even if it doesnt come to fruition. Its QUITE UNLIKE some other "fringe science" stuff we see around, and you know what I am talking about.
ME is only fringe science in the sense its revolutionary. Not in the sense of being lots of bullshit researched by scammers or people who dont accept they are wrong or may be in the wrong track.
I appreciate you drawing a distinction between fringe and what I like to call "emergent" science. Yes indeed, when i was hired back in 2005 to survey all the supposed "breakthrough propulsions schemes", I found that the only one worthy of investment was the M-E research. LI found out later that LochMart had done a similar survey and come to the same conclusion.
Much of the work is continuing to use the same sorts of materials and designs from more than a decade ago. I'm hoping that when Jim's book comes out, we'll see an explosion of interest that opens up some finding and allows access to new materials like single crystal CCTO, that has k values up to 100,000. Right now, Jim is using PZT that has a k of less than 1,000. Force generated by his UFG scales with the square of the k, so you can see why access to CCTO could be a breakthrough issue.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
