GIThruster wrote:Jim Woodward's first exploration into M-E thrusters was over a decade ago when he was working with Tom Mayhood, who was his graduate student at the time. The test results of those early studies are impressive, as are the videos of the torque pendulum moving under it's own thrust.
Those were UFG studies. After that time, Jim came upon the design of the MLT in order to sidestep the acoustic impedance issues in the UFG design. After several years study by people like Jim, Paul and others, Jim realized that the MLT does not provide the bulk acceleration necessary for an efficient thruster. In the MLT, only the mobile ion inside the ceramic lattice moves, which is why it was thought to avoid the impedance issue--but the theory behind the thrusters really does say it needs "bulk" acceleration, meaning the entire ceramic lattice; and the MLT never provided this which is why one presumes results were disappointing.
About 7 years ago, Paul did his own MLT studies, and though he was not able to provide the necessary scientific controls (like vacuum) he did record significant thrusts--the highest thrust claims to date. If these test's are to be trusted, that thrust is certainly the result of the much higher frequency his design operated at. M-E scales with the cube of frequency.
After the MLT, Jim began work on the M-E Rotator which is not a thruster, but which does demonstrate M-E. Those results are posted on the web along with a video of the apparatus running. These are impressive results but they are convincing--not compelling--since they do not demonstrate thrust. If you want to compel people to sit up and take notice, you have to generate thrust.
Jim is now back working on the UFG. Hopefully we'll see some interesting test results in the next 3 months or so. He's using PZT not only in the actuator stacks, but as the active ceramic/cap as well, which one hopes will mitigate the previous acoustic impedance issues.
FYI, I was hired about 6 years ago to survey the advanced propulsion technologies that are emerging and identify those worthy of investment by the private sector. My finding was that ONLY Jim Woodward's work is worth such investment. Lock-Mart did the same study the year before I did and came to the same conclusion (I found out later.) NASA did their BPPP and identified a small handful of techs worth investigation, but those included supposed effects that had no theory to explain them, like Podkletnov's work. NASA did invest in some study of both Pod's work and the MLT, but that work never got off the ground before funding was cut.
IMHO, you have to be a dope to invest in Podkletnov's work seeing that there is no theory to explain why it ought to work, and it's darn expensive to investigate. I think the reason Pod's work gets the attention it does, as well as stuff like Tajmar's work (which is a follow-on) is because people DON'T understand what's there and so there's no patent, and an opportunity for fortune and glory. Stupid reason to invest. . .IMHO.
I'm not sure it's fair to say NASA identified M-E as the tech with the greatest potential for breakthrough propulsion. The BPPP never made a recommendation as to which tech it considered had the greatest potential. It is noteworthy, however; that NASA only pressed forward on 2 tech investigations, Woodward's and Pod's, and that there is/was no theory in support of Pod's claims and there has never been any replication success either. Fact is, Pod wants an outrageous amount of money to do the work at all--you'd be aghast at how much money he wanted from Boeing to work for them. Looks like a scam.
Woodward really does stand alone in many ways, especially including that he consistently turns down funding and finances his work out of his own pocket..
What has been your commentary to the diamond based room temperature superconductor guy (Dr. Prins) on the attitude of the science and to a lesser extent the commercial communities in regards to embracing new paradigms like the M-E?
“It's no crime to realize that trying to convince those with decades of study at stake, to re-examine their beliefs, is going to be a major task. What I like so much about Kuhn is, despite he's not an epistemologist, he's identified the dynamic in history as one of failure--as a current paradigm repeatedly fails to answer certain kinds of puzzle questions, as it generates more and more "anomalies" that it cannot cope with, it earns the place of re-evaluation. That opens the door to revolution in science, as opposed to normal, evolution in science.”
Sadly it's not "crazy past understanding" why Jim and all the other M-E experimenters have to endure the curse of dealing with the details of the M-E implementations, for it still boils down to a matter of the required resource people having a belief or faith in Jim’s new M-E paradigm, or not.
(Dorothy clicking her ruby shoe heels together three times, and believing that she would be whisked home by an unknown agent, and be right about it!)
Yes, Jim’s rotary data from last year showed that an M-E like 2-omega signal was being generated, but unless you really understood the experiment from the ground up, it was not a conclusive test series because nobody has gone to the expense of replicating it yet. Jim's verified M-E thrust data to date, (Ref Tajmar’s 2006 Mach-6 MLT data that only showed a transient thrust signature due to the lack of a bulk acceleration component in the Mach-6 series of MLTs.), has never gone over a micro-Newton at best. A thrust level that can be expressed by any number of false positive sources no matter how many controls you think you have in place. And as you noted, I could never afford the required vacuum equipment needed to verify my 2004 and 2005 MLT multi milli-Newton results per the critic's requirements either.
When we can generate reversible milli-Newton plus thrusts in a hard vacuum of 1x10^-7 Torr or less, with self-contained M-E devices powered by its own local power supplies with the entire test article ensemble adequately shielded to cancel possible mundane electrostatic and electrodynamic effects with the vacuum chamber, we should start to see more outside funding interest, but not until then.
BTW, by pure dumb luck both the 2.2 MHz MLT-2004 and 2.15 and 3.8 MHz Mach-2MHz MLT test articles had flexible suspension systems that let them create a bulk acceleration of their respective cap rings under the influence of the MLT’s toroidal B-field coil applied vxB Lorentz force. The MLT-2004 cap ring was mounted in an RTV rubber sheath used to electrically isolate its cap ring from the over-rapped toroidal B-field coil, while the Mach-2MHz cap & toroidal B-field coil assembly was mounted on a Plexiglas dog-bone that acted as a very stiff spring optimized for high frequency response. And yes, I verified that all the electrical and mechanical force vectors in each test article were pushing in the right directions to generate a net thrust from the M-E. But alas even though the Mach-2MHz was in a Faraday shield, folks still got hung up on the remote possibility that there was some sort of ion wind effect going on…