As usual, it’s unlikely that this will pan out, but it’s certainly worthy of further investigation.
14 thoughts on “A Propellantless Drive?”
That just screams “nut science”. I remember when Pacifica radio in SoCal had a nut science program. Entertaining on two fronts –
1. wacky but amusing physics assumptions.
2. Sudden disappearance from sight after it’s debunked – usually by some mid level tech guy.
I should also point out that such endeavors have a long history of attracting gullible investors who either end up disappointed or demanding jail for the scam artistes.
OT but makes me wonder about James Woodward’s propulsion system and whether or not that is making any progress. I see he did an interview about a year ago that is posted on Youtube and que’d it up for later.
I’m somewhat positive on his ideas since it’s more reasonable physics. The basic idea is that you take something which can hold energy, like a capacitor, and periodically energize and deenergize it while simultaneously exerting periodic forces on the device. The additional energy content adds a small amount of mass by relativity. The idea is that you are pushing it opposite the desired direction of thrust when it is “heavy” (that is, energized), and push in the desired direction of thrust when it is “light” (deenergized).
A typical approach would be a rapidly rotating ring of capacitors that reach full charge at the point of the ring in the direction of thrust and complete discharge on the opposite side. The capacitors are experiencing centripetal force pushing them towards the center of the ring. The “heavy” side of the ring pushes opposite direction of thrust and the “light” side along the direction of thrust as desired.
For me, there were two issues. First, for me it was unknown whether the act of charging these capacitors would counter their net thrust. If the thrust of the device is countered by the thrust of the power system, then you’re not going anywhere. I still found the effect plausible.
The second is does it beat a high efficiency blue led [*] mounted on the hull? There’s no point to propellantless systems, if they can’t beat the extremely low bar of a photon propellant system. Presently, they don’t.
I’m dubious. Accepting the theory that the capacitor changes mass because it picks up energy, by my calculations based on a 10,000 uF capacitor rated for 100 Volts, it would take 230 gigatons of such capacitors to change the mass by 1 kg.
Years ago in a discussion of propellantless thrusters I suggested a simple test. Hang all the equipment in the room from the ceiling using twine, swinging each item and adjusting the cord lengths so they all have the same pendular periods. Then cycle the thruster on and off with that same period and see if any of the equipment, other than the thruster, starts to swing.
My argument was that they’d accidentally built an electric motor and they just have to find the rotor or the stator, depending on which role the thruster is playing.
In electrical machines, electric currents generate forces, sometimes so large that the wires have to be bolted into place so they don’t jump around.
In electrical machines, electric currents generate forces, sometimes so large that the wires have to be bolted into place so they don’t jump around.
This was essentially my conclusion about EMDrive. My first clue should have by Shawyer’s first video of the machine in operation where it was suspended by a wire and when activated shown to twist. But I hung around the NSF Group on odd-drives for about two years to see what the experimenters were doing with it.
Shawyer went to an awful lot of trouble to create a Magnetorquer out of a microwave cavity.
AFAIK the obvious null experiment of operating it within Helmholtz coils to remove Earth’s magnetic field as the stator field has never been tried.
Now a magnetorquer is a genuine method of propellant-less propulsion used to orient satellites in orbit, as long as the body they are orbiting has a magnetic field. They’d work particularly well in orbit around Jupiter. No very well around Mars. ….and not at all in deep space.
The cost for getting a small payload into space is lower than it’s ever been before. Get your experimental package into space, and then use it to raise the orbit. Then we’ll get excited.
I finally watched the video at the link and found the result very disappointing. Dr. Buhler (sorry can’t resist an ironic Ferris reference) only covered methods, experiments and results up to about 2019-2021, when he was getting micro to milli Newtons of force. But the chart at the end that shows exponential gain up to +1g of force starts at about 2023 to this year. And nothing said about that! (Well except a chart!) What? Hey Bob? Where’s the beef?
Now I can understand wanting to put off full disclosure of this kind of discovery until patents have been filed, pending or awarded. But usually conference presentations aren’t made until the legal rights are secured and first papers are published in journals that fully disclose the invention and request replication. Once a few replications are reported it is fine to go to conferences with if not all the details at least a reference to where one can read the original paper that tells all. And bask in all the glory, admiration (and jealousy) on “discovering an exceptionally hot cup of tea”*.
Otherwise I get very suspicious. Doubly so when one claims one’s discovery can explain results in unrelated fields of research, like EMDrive, the Woodward Effect and esp. the Casimir Effect. So far all I’ve seen is that he applied a constant from quantum physics to fudge E field force factors. Fine. You got to point A. Now how did you get to point B? Like Klatuu, I await your answer.
That just screams “nut science”. I remember when Pacifica radio in SoCal had a nut science program. Entertaining on two fronts –
1. wacky but amusing physics assumptions.
2. Sudden disappearance from sight after it’s debunked – usually by some mid level tech guy.
I should also point out that such endeavors have a long history of attracting gullible investors who either end up disappointed or demanding jail for the scam artistes.
OT but makes me wonder about James Woodward’s propulsion system and whether or not that is making any progress. I see he did an interview about a year ago that is posted on Youtube and que’d it up for later.
I’m somewhat positive on his ideas since it’s more reasonable physics. The basic idea is that you take something which can hold energy, like a capacitor, and periodically energize and deenergize it while simultaneously exerting periodic forces on the device. The additional energy content adds a small amount of mass by relativity. The idea is that you are pushing it opposite the desired direction of thrust when it is “heavy” (that is, energized), and push in the desired direction of thrust when it is “light” (deenergized).
A typical approach would be a rapidly rotating ring of capacitors that reach full charge at the point of the ring in the direction of thrust and complete discharge on the opposite side. The capacitors are experiencing centripetal force pushing them towards the center of the ring. The “heavy” side of the ring pushes opposite direction of thrust and the “light” side along the direction of thrust as desired.
For me, there were two issues. First, for me it was unknown whether the act of charging these capacitors would counter their net thrust. If the thrust of the device is countered by the thrust of the power system, then you’re not going anywhere. I still found the effect plausible.
The second is does it beat a high efficiency blue led [*] mounted on the hull? There’s no point to propellantless systems, if they can’t beat the extremely low bar of a photon propellant system. Presently, they don’t.
[*] Because blue goes faster!
I’m dubious. Accepting the theory that the capacitor changes mass because it picks up energy, by my calculations based on a 10,000 uF capacitor rated for 100 Volts, it would take 230 gigatons of such capacitors to change the mass by 1 kg.
I don’t know if it is reasonable but anything can be made to sound reasonable. Thanks for sharing your views.
I find the frequent overuse of “center of mass” is an odd verbal tic. I’m thinking “yes, that’s an acceptable place to push on….”
Years ago in a discussion of propellantless thrusters I suggested a simple test. Hang all the equipment in the room from the ceiling using twine, swinging each item and adjusting the cord lengths so they all have the same pendular periods. Then cycle the thruster on and off with that same period and see if any of the equipment, other than the thruster, starts to swing.
My argument was that they’d accidentally built an electric motor and they just have to find the rotor or the stator, depending on which role the thruster is playing.
In electrical machines, electric currents generate forces, sometimes so large that the wires have to be bolted into place so they don’t jump around.
In electrical machines, electric currents generate forces, sometimes so large that the wires have to be bolted into place so they don’t jump around.
This was essentially my conclusion about EMDrive. My first clue should have by Shawyer’s first video of the machine in operation where it was suspended by a wire and when activated shown to twist. But I hung around the NSF Group on odd-drives for about two years to see what the experimenters were doing with it.
Shawyer went to an awful lot of trouble to create a Magnetorquer out of a microwave cavity.
AFAIK the obvious null experiment of operating it within Helmholtz coils to remove Earth’s magnetic field as the stator field has never been tried.
Now a magnetorquer is a genuine method of propellant-less propulsion used to orient satellites in orbit, as long as the body they are orbiting has a magnetic field. They’d work particularly well in orbit around Jupiter. No very well around Mars. ….and not at all in deep space.
Exactly.
Now a magnetorquer is a genuine method of propellant-less propulsion used to orient satellites in orbit,
Including the Hubble Space Telescope.
If you count electrons used for the electrostatic charge, you will find where the fuel is sourced.
The cost for getting a small payload into space is lower than it’s ever been before. Get your experimental package into space, and then use it to raise the orbit. Then we’ll get excited.
Point taken.
Done recently (I forget the details) but the claim was there was a malfunction of the satellite that prevented the experiment.
Well, there are always more launch opportunities on reusable rockets!
I finally watched the video at the link and found the result very disappointing. Dr. Buhler (sorry can’t resist an ironic Ferris reference) only covered methods, experiments and results up to about 2019-2021, when he was getting micro to milli Newtons of force. But the chart at the end that shows exponential gain up to +1g of force starts at about 2023 to this year. And nothing said about that! (Well except a chart!) What? Hey Bob? Where’s the beef?
Now I can understand wanting to put off full disclosure of this kind of discovery until patents have been filed, pending or awarded. But usually conference presentations aren’t made until the legal rights are secured and first papers are published in journals that fully disclose the invention and request replication. Once a few replications are reported it is fine to go to conferences with if not all the details at least a reference to where one can read the original paper that tells all. And bask in all the glory, admiration (and jealousy) on “discovering an exceptionally hot cup of tea”*.
Otherwise I get very suspicious. Doubly so when one claims one’s discovery can explain results in unrelated fields of research, like EMDrive, the Woodward Effect and esp. the Casimir Effect. So far all I’ve seen is that he applied a constant from quantum physics to fudge E field force factors. Fine. You got to point A. Now how did you get to point B? Like Klatuu, I await your answer.
* HGTTG: ref: “Infinite Improbability Drive”.