Mach Effect progress

[kurt9]

Our material has not been fully characterized yet, but it appears to have more than 200*K thermal bandwidth.

What material is that?

[Carl White]

Interesting article by Charles Platt (former senior writer for Wired):

http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-qu ... ess-s.html

He visited Dr. Woodward's lab in October. Apparent, through serendipity more than anything, Dr. Woodward's work has attracted the attention and involvement of Dr. Heidi Fearn, a theoretical physicist at Fullerton. They're working on the next prototype.

There's a mention of SSI's fundraising efforts as well.

[kurt9]

I've known Charles Platt for over 20 years through the cryonics and life extension milieu. His article, as to be expected, is quite good. He is a good person to have interested in Woodward's Mach effect work as he is quite sympathetic for technological developments that improve life and create opportunities for an expanded future.

[birchoff]

While this isnt entirely new. It is new to me. Looks like two papers on MET were published this summer

published at AIAA JPC 2014 Ohio
According to the References of AIAA paper this was accepted for publication in April 2014 in Journal of Space Exploration, Mehtpress

[DeltaV]

Following your second link and subsequent tangents led me, somehow, to these:


Center of mass acceleration of an isolated system of two particles with time variable masses interacting with each other via Newton’s third law internal forces: Mach effect thrust 1
Keith H.Wanser
Department of Physics, California State University Fullerton, Fullerton CA 92831, (USA)

Utilizing Newton’s second law of motion, it is shown that an isolated system consisting of two particles with time variable masses interacting with each other via Newton’s third law forces and no net external force can produce a DC (unidirectional) acceleration of the center of mass of the system, without any net loss or gain of mass in a cyclic process. There is no rocket type thrust in the usual sense of ejecting propellant, since it is supposed that there is no relative velocity along the direction of motion associated with the mass changes. A surprising result is that it is necessary to rederive the expression for the acceleration of the center of mass of a system when the masses are time variable, the usual expression producing zero acceleration of the center of mass under very general conditions of time variable masses and any Newton’s third law forces of interaction between them. There is no violation of momentum conservation, since the total mechanical momentum of the two particle system is not conserved, a result which is independent of the exact mechanism for producing the time variable masses. Explicit expressions are obtained for the acceleration of the center of mass and time rate of change of the total momentum for a simple model of forces and mass fluctuations with harmonic time variation. Implications of these results are discussed, including their application to propellantless Mach Effect Thruster’s (MET’s).

[DEAD LINK]http://www.mehtapress.com/mehtapress/Jo ... file_5.pdf[DEAD LINK]
http://i-sss.org/upload/toc/JOSE/2/2/146/JOSE_146.pdf


How Long Will It Take To Build Starships?
James F.Woodward
Departments of History and Physics, California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, 92834, (CALIFORNIA)

The theme for Space Technology Applications International Forum II in 2013 was: when will it be possible to build craft capable of reaching the stars in reasonable lengths of time? “Reasonable” was understood to be significantly less than a human lifetime. That can only be done by implementing “exotic” technologies that are presently thought to be the stuff of science fiction. But there is at least one proposal may make such technologies practicable. It rests on “Mach’s principle” as Einstein called it. This paper, which captures the contents of the keynote talk at that conference, recapitulates how we have reached our present pass, and tells of recent experimental developments in the “Mach effects” project. Though a small-scale, table top project, steady progress has been made. For example, switching transients that may have propulsive applications are reported here. Post conference comments on claims that the quantum vacuum can be exploited for propulsive purposes are included. It is shown that such speculations are without merit.

[DEAD LINK]http://www.mehtapress.com/mehtapress/Jo ... file_2.pdf[DEAD LINK]
http://i-sss.org/upload/toc/JOSE/3/1/162/JOSE_162.pdf


Reducing Fusion Plasma Confinement Energy With Specially Conditioned Electromagnetic Fields
H.David Froning*
University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, 8004, (AUSTRALIA)

A central fusion physics problem is strong repulsion between fusion fuel ions that must be overcome by strong confining fields that must drive ions close enough so their nuclear fusion can occur. The ions finally experience attraction when their separation becomes shorter than the short ranges of ion-attracting SU(3) strong nuclear fields, and ion fusion then occurs. In this respect, Barrett shows the possibility of conditioning ordinary U(1) electromagnetic (EM) fields with the same SU(2) and SU(3) Lie Symmetry as the SU(2) and SU(3) nuclear fields that accomplish hydrogen fusion in the Sun with less pressure and temperature than is required in fusion reactors on Earth. This has suggested the possibility of SU(2) and SU(3) EM fields causing terrestrial fusion less confinement energy than ordinary U(1) EM fields currently require for fusion. And, this possibility of SU(2) or SU(3) EM fields enabling terrestrial fusion with less confinement energy than U(1) EM fields currently require, is briefly explored for some promising nuclear fusion reactor designs.

[DEAD LINK]http://www.mehtapress.com/mehtapress/Jo ... file_3.pdf[DEAD LINK]
http://i-sss.org/upload/toc/JOSE/2/3/153/JOSE_153.pdf

[EDIT: Fixed dead links. Google refuses to find Wanser's paper. Had to use the apparently better search engine DuckDuckGo to search for "journal of space exploration". The third paper won't open in Reader 11.0.13.]

[D Tibbets]

The last quote above by H.David Froning is highly misleading, if not nonsense.

Fusion, of course, occurs in the Sun, or rather in the Suns core. There the density is ~ 100,000 atmospheres or ~ 10^ 30 particles per cubic meter. Fusion can scale by as much as the density squared. So, everything else being equal the fusion rate in the Sun's core compared to a Tokamak might be ~ 10^10 squared or ~ 10^20 times faster. That is ~ 100 billion billion times faster. Of course things are not equal, the temperature is ~ 10% of what might be in a Tokamak. And the fusion cross section of the P-P reaction is as much as ~ 10^20 to 10^30 times smaller. That is why the Sun does not make much fusion per unit of volume- but there is a huge total volume involved. Compared to terrestrial efforts at fusion, any device that reaches breakeven will have very much higher fusion rates than the Sun's core per unit of volume. This is partly due to the lower temperature in the Sun's core, but mostly it is due to the extremely smaller fusion cross section of hydrogen (protons), via the P-P reaction. The CNO process (Carbon- Nitrogen- Oxygen catalysed) can reach much larger fusion cross sections in heavy stars, but it is a minor contributor in the Sun (at least during it's main sequence lifetime). If the Sun was made up of deuterium instead of hydrogen the fusion rate would be much higher, despite the lower temperature. This is due to the density, not some difference in magnetic confinement or better temperature dependent fusion rate. And, of course the Sun is not a magnetic confinement fusion device. It depends on gravity for confinement.

If you are a Solar Corona fusion fanatic, I will just say that at ~ 100-300 eV (~ 1-3 million degrees C) any deuterium could fuse with other deuterium at very small rates. But as the density of deuterium will be ~ 1000 times less than the density of hydrogen, the contribution will be ~ 1,000,000 times less than any hydrogen fusion- if the cross sections were the same. With the cross section considerations the rare D-D reactions in the Sun's corona would possibly exceed the P-P rate by a large margin. But both are still extremely rare. Again, not so much due to the temperature (D-D rate might be ~ 1000 to 100,000 times less than at 10 KeV), but due to the extremely low density evenD-D reactions are rare. The densities in the corona may be ~ 1-10% of what you might have in a Tokamak (very generous). The corresponding density dependent fusion rate might be ~ 1/ 1000th or less than in a Tokamak. Throw in the very dilute deuterium makeup of the Coronal gas/ plasma would decrease the effective deuterium density another thousand fold, or ~ 1 millionth the fusion rate relative to the deuterium density in a Tokamak burning D-D fuel.
A fusion rate of surviving deuterium in the Sun's Corona would be conservatively a billion times less than in a Tokamak at the same temperature. A Tokamak with such densities might make enough fusion power to power a light bulb if it was the size of Texas. There are density fluctuations in magnetic constrained plasma flows in the Corona, but even tremendous temporary localized plasma concentrations would still not produce hardly any fusion as compared to the Sun's core.

If you wish to consider fusion reactions in small stars with a lot of hydrogen, small amounts of deuterium and lithium, you need to research stellar evolution and brown dwarfs. Any comparison of stellar fusion to terrestrial fusion must address deuterium and lithium reactions, not p-p reactions- compare apples to apples. And you must appreciate that stellar fusion confinement is due to gravity, not magnetic effects, at least for 99.999999999999999999... percent of the total fusions, which are occurring in the gravity confined core.

Dan Tibbets

[GIThruster]

I've just made my third pass at Keith Wanser's paper above on variable mass and again enjoyed it very much--at least those parts I can understand. One thing continues to intrigue me. This quote by Maxwell to Tait, what do you suppose it means?

"I don't know how to apply laws of motion to bodies of variable mass, for there are no experiments on such bodies any more than on bodies of negative mass. All such questions should be labeled "Cambridge, Mass." and sent to the U.S."

Is there a hidden jest in the reference to Cambridge, Mass? I can't make heads nor tails of that part of it, but the fact Maxwell was considering the possibility of variable mass and even negative mass so long ago, is for me a bit stunning. I have to wonder too, what has changed that scientists don't regularly demonstrate this kind of openness to possibility--such humility.

So what is it, is Cambridge somehow variable? What jest am I missing?

[Skipjack]

Gary Hudson posted the JPC 2014 conference paper on NASA Spaceflight:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... ach=626443

[alexjrgreen]

I've just made my third pass at Keith Wanser's paper above on variable mass and again enjoyed it very much--at least those parts I can understand. One thing continues to intrigue me. This quote by Maxwell to Tait, what do you suppose it means?

"I don't know how to apply laws of motion to bodies of variable mass, for there are no experiments on such bodies any more than on bodies of negative mass. All such questions should be labeled "Cambridge, Mass." and sent to the U.S."

Is there a hidden jest in the reference to Cambridge, Mass? I can't make heads nor tails of that part of it, but the fact Maxwell was considering the possibility of variable mass and even negative mass so long ago, is for me a bit stunning. I have to wonder too, what has changed that scientists don't regularly demonstrate this kind of openness to possibility--such humility.

So what is it, is Cambridge somehow variable? What jest am I missing?

Maxwell is joking that "Variable" must be a place in Massachusetts (and so local to Harvard University) for the term "variable mass" to have any meaning.

In "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" (section 82), Maxwell famously calculated the zero-point energy and concluded that he didn't have any means to understand it.

[GIThruster]

I think it was half a jest again. He was at Cambridge University in England and he's joking about the other Cambridge in the US, so it is the variation of the original I guess, but it's only half punny.

[stefanbanev]

I'm wandering what the advantage of propellant free drive over traditional Newtonian rocketry... a single proton can be accelerated asymptotically close to speed of light as soon as energy supply provides sufficient energy... besides, a single relativistic proton may have mass of rocket once it close enough to speed of light; no need to challenge momentum conservation and still to be able to transfer any amount of electric energy to kinetic energy of rocket with virtually no propellant exhaust... apparently I miss something... may some one explain what I miss here...

[kunkmiester]

There's a famous quote about a rocket engine's capability as a weapon being proportional to the energy of it's output. An ion or photon engine is basically a really big gun pointed backwards. With a reactionless drive, you don't have to worry about where your back end is pointing.

[93143]

I'm wandering what the advantage of propellant free drive over traditional Newtonian rocketry... a single proton can be accelerated asymptotically close to speed of light as soon as energy supply provides sufficient energy... besides, a single relativistic proton may have mass of rocket once it close enough to speed of light; no need to challenge momentum conservation and still to be able to transfer any amount of electric energy to kinetic energy of rocket with virtually no propellant exhaust... apparently I miss something... may some one explain what I miss here...

What you're missing is the staggering difficulty of obtaining that much energy. Because of the nonlinearity of kinetic energy with velocity, using less mass at a higher exhaust velocity results in either lower thrust or higher power requirements. What you're talking about would be roughly equivalent to a photon rocket (which represents the theoretical limit on specific impulse), and a 100% efficient photon rocket rated at one billion watts would produce about three quarters of a pound of thrust.

(I assume you aren't seriously suggesting throwing a single proton backwards so fast that it would have a relativistic mass equal to that of the spacecraft. Try for a moment to imagine what a near-instantaneous impulse like that would do to the vehicle... then realize that to get the energy to do it you'd have had to use up half the ship's initial mass in a perfect direct-conversion reactor.)

For any energy-containing substance, optimal rocket performance is obtained by throwing said substance backwards with 100% of its energy converted to kinetic energy. Going to higher exhaust velocity requires you to either keep some used fuel on board or dump it unproductively; in either case your delta-V goes down. Even a nuclear reaction doesn't result in enough energy per particle to do what you're describing, and advanced Orion variants and directed fusion product rockets are limited to about 10% of the speed of light without staging because of practical limits on the propellant mass fraction (ie: the spacecraft is mostly propellant by mass). An antimatter rocket probably comes closest to your scheme, but antimatter is horribly difficult to obtain and even more difficult (not to mention dangerous) to store, and even then you need a large fraction of your ship to be propellant if you want relativistic delta-V.

Worse, only certain designs (notably the Orion variants) can really put out substantial thrust, so everything else is limited to small accelerations and thus can't take off or land, or really get around the inner solar system fast for that matter. Not that you'd really want an Orion launching from your back yard... And all of them are extreme engineering - big, powerful, dangerous, insanely expensive.

A Mach-effect thruster, on the other hand, could propel a spacecraft of basically any size indefinitely without much fuss. There are not thought to be any theoretical limits on thrust per unit power, so it is entirely plausible that launch-class vehicle thrust-to-weight ratios could be obtained with sufficient development. At one gee, Mars is two days away at closest approach, or five when it's on the far side of the sun. The outer solar system would be accessible in weeks, not years or decades. For other stars, gas/dust shielding would probably be the limiting factor, but the trip time would be measured in years, not decades or centuries.

...did I mention that past a certain level of thrust per unit power, it becomes practical to build power generators using M-E thrusters to harvest energy from the distant universe? With such technology, an M-E spacecraft could power itself indefinitely without consuming any sort of fuel.

With sufficiently advanced M-E thrusters, I could literally modify my car to go to Mars, and it wouldn't look any different from the outside.

[zapkitty]

With sufficiently advanced M-E thrusters, I could literally modify my car to go to Mars, and it wouldn't look any different from the outside.

... well, only as different as you'd want it to look

All my friends know the low rider

The low rider is a little higher...

[GIThruster]

...did I mention that past a certain level of thrust per unit power, it becomes practical to build power generators using M-E thrusters to harvest energy from the distant universe? With such technology, an M-E spacecraft could power itself indefinitely without consuming any sort of fuel.

And it's worth noting that if M-E propulsion proves out we also have huge warrant for developing working Stargates. In many ways, the ultimate thruster geometry is the basis for a carry-with-you wormhole generator as is found on the cover of Woodward's book. If you can decouple the mass of the entire ship from its gravitic connection to the rest of the universe, none of the ship has mass, and it can accelerate to any arbitrarily high velocity, and through a wormhole that it creates itself. That's what Nembo Buldrini's drawing on the cover of Woodward's book is depicting, the formation of a wormhole created by the craft that is about to fly though it on the journey home.

You can't do this with a rocket of any kind.

150 years ago, James Clerk Maxwell penned the equations that eventually gave us mastery over electricity and magnetism--electromagnetism. Back then, there were no futurists who could possibly guess what would be the result. A few tried. Most notably, Jules Verne took a shot in several stories he wrote, painting a picture of life with this mastery. In fact he even went further and postulated what mastery of the atom would be like when he invented the Nautilus in his 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Yet even Verne could not have guessed about smartphones. There are today, hundreds of thousands of manifest technologies all as result of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell created a revolution that has changed life for everyone on the planet, from those working in the Whitehouse, to the Masi warrior in deep Africa. (Yes, even the Masi now have more communications and computing power in the palms of their hands with smartphones, than the President of the United States had access to 25 years ago, as is noted by Peter Diamandis.)

We are again on the verge of exactly this sort of revolution in technology--mastery over the forces of nature. Just as Maxwell gave us mastery over electromagnetism, Woodward is giving us mastery over gravity and inertia or gravinertial technology. And here Verne was on target too. Wormholes are time machines, and Verne got much of that right as well. To speak of these things, even to think carefully through their consequences, requires a paradigm shift in what we think we know about propulsion.