Propellantless space propulsion workshop

by

Marc Millis summarized the presentations at a Sept 10 to 14 workshop on propellantless propulsion in Estes Park Colorado.

(H/T Centauri Dreams)

Three different tests of the EmDrive were reported of varying degrees of rigor. All of the tests indicated that the claimed thrust is probably attributable to false positives.

Woodward’s Mach Effect Thruster had more analysis if positive results are indeed genuine, and then determining if they are scalable to practical levels. Woodward’s team, led by Heidi Fearn made a presentation. The Tajmar Dresden team had substantial progress to report, specifically where Maxime Monette covered the Mach Effect thruster details in addition to the thrust stand details from Matthias Kößling. There was also an analytical assessment by based on conventional harmonic oscillators, plus more than one presentation related to the underlying theory.

Skipping through all the open issues, the upshot is that variations in inertia would require revisions to the conservation laws.

Quantum approaches were also briefly covered, where Raymond Chiao discussed the negative energy densities of Casimir cavities and Jonathan Thompson (a prior student of Chiao’s) gave an update on experiments to demonstrate the “Dynamical Casimir effect” – a method to create a photon rocket using photons extracted from the quantum vacuum.

There were several other presentations. One was from retired physicist and science fiction writer, John Cramer, who described the assumptions needed to induce a wormhole using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that could cover 1200 light-years in 59 days.

By this time next year, Marc Millis believes we will have definitive results on the Mach Effect Thruster, and the findings of the EmDrive will likely arrive sooner.

If the results are positive and indicate that it does work, then there will be many more attempted replications and surge of interest and more hype.

Nextbigfuture will look to see what happens after Heidi Fearn and Tajmar and his team work together on the new Woodward device. The new device has a larger effect, so it should be easier for them to see any larger scaling error or whether there is a true effect.

If the results are negative and EMDrive and Mach Effect propulsion are disproved, then we will need to look for the intersection of open questions in physics to the critical make-break issues of those desired breakthroughs.

Refinement of the Mach Effect Propulsion using brass separation from the reaction mass has improved the thrust by about 65 times up to 60 millinewtons per kilowatt. This would be competitive with the best Hall ion thrusters if there is replication and proving the technology in space.

Heidi Fearn will be taking a working device to Dresden and will stay with them until they get it working. Dresden had problems with a previous device and published bad results.

In June, 2018, Tajmar and his team didn’t use the mandatory stepup/isolation transformer: Therefore they operated the device at the wrong frequency, one that could never trigger any thrust signature.

As the Dresden team saw nothing conclusive, they increased the voltage for too long and the temperature in the PZT stacks, so they also managed to toast the initially good-working device before returning it to Woodward in California four months later.

Martin Tajmar previously had good results on an 18 year old test device he had received from Woodward.

71 slide powerpoint lays out the tests that Woodwards team did to show that Martin Tajmar and his team made mistaken tests.

130 thoughts on “Propellantless space propulsion workshop”

  1. 50 years that nothing is colonized with rocket propulsion

    https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

    It is not that there is any suspicion?
    Don’t you come?
    Best for the PNN of the ASPS www.asps.it/takeoff.htm

    https://emdrive-forum.com/forum/index.php?thread/49-asps-pnn-propulsione-non-newtoniana-tests-which-in-our-opinion-violates-action-r/&pageNo=2

    Our program towards
    http://www.ansa.it/canale_scienza_tecnica/notizie/spazio_astronomia/2019/07/01/scoperti-tre-mondi-alieni-simili-alla-terra-_6e8b32bf-b821-40ab-87f9-aec4cba0949e.html

    With a Kilopower Reactor

    https://www.hdblog.it/2018/05/03/kilopower-reattore-nucleare-test-successo-nasa/

    in few days ( action reaction violation produces much non linear laws of motion!)

    by this new PNN Prototype

    http://www.asps.it/ecfringere.jpg

    You cannot have a violation of the principle of action and reaction and think that the other two laws of Newtonian dynamics are unchanged

    We have a demonstrative prototype that embraces all three laws of Newtonian dynamics

    More details in next issue of Nova Astronautica ( n.160) www.asps.it/vol39.htm

  2. I could be wrong, but I thought there was only one navy team working all of the propellantless initiatives of late?

  3. I could be wrong but I thought there was only one navy team working all of the propellantless initiatives of late?

  4. Matteo is a dyed in the wool Leftist. Sacryjello is not different from any Putin paid troll in mindlessly spreading negativity and FUD for no more reason than he gets paid.

  5. Matteo is a dyed in the wool Leftist. Sacryjello is not different from any Putin paid troll in mindlessly spreading negativity and FUD for no more reason than he gets paid.

  15. Wait, I thought Matteo was the Russian supporter. How can people who argue against his positions also be Russians? Are they white Russians?

  16. Wait I thought Matteo was the Russian supporter.How can people who argue against his positions also be Russians?Are they white Russians?

  19. Matteo is a dyed in the wool Leftist. Sacryjello is not different from any Putin paid troll in mindlessly spreading negativity and FUD for no more reason than he gets paid.

  23. Moron, write what you mean. The system no more loses energy than does a resistive heating element–only to the extent the reactive power of the capacitors cannot resonate between reactive elements. So it works so long as it has electrical power.

  24. Moron write what you mean. The system no more loses energy than does a resistive heating element–only to the extent the reactive power of the capacitors cannot resonate between reactive elements. So it works so long as it has electrical power.

  25. My mistake folks. Tom says a nuclear powered vibrator will fly through space and gains speed as it collides with a black hole.

  26. My mistake folks. Tom says a nuclear powered vibrator will fly through space and gains speed as it collides with a black hole.

  29. Moron, it is not claimed to be a device which needs no energy, only that it needs no propellant. It would not have to be solar, it could be nuclear.

  30. Moron it is not claimed to be a device which needs no energy only that it needs no propellant. It would not have to be solar it could be nuclear.

  31. This Mock Effect is supposed to interact with the aether by fluctuations in mass due to fluctuations in a piezoelectric material’s strain energy. But that energy is carried along with the power supply which is part of the unit – unless solar powered. Overall the system will lose energy as the energy flows from supply to the vibrator (my own term for it) and the vibrator heats up and radiates. Unless solar powered, the system loses energy and becomes infinitesimally lighter because of the mass energy equivalence. When you use a battery powered or even a nuclear powered vibrator it loses energy and becomes lighter.

  32. This Mock Effect is supposed to interact with the aether by fluctuations in mass due to fluctuations in a piezoelectric material’s strain energy. But that energy is carried along with the power supply which is part of the unit – unless solar powered. Overall the system will lose energy as the energy flows from supply to the vibrator (my own term for it) and the vibrator heats up and radiates. Unless solar powered the system loses energy and becomes infinitesimally lighter because of the mass energy equivalence. When you use a battery powered or even a nuclear powered vibrator it loses energy and becomes lighter.

  33. I think it’s funny how you’ve sucked onto WarrenThe Troll’s lies. BTW, Putin appreciates your service, says the check is in the mail.

  34. I think it’s funny how you’ve sucked onto WarrenThe Troll’s lies. BTW Putin appreciates your service says the check is in the mail.

  35. What about Quantised Inertia (QI) Propulsion? “Dr. Mike McCulloch, from the University of Plymouth, first put forward the idea of quantised inertia (QI) – through which he believes light can be converted into thrust – in 2007. He has now received $1.3 million from the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for a four-year study which aims to make the concept a reality. The QI theory predicts that objects can be pushed by differences in the intensity of so-called Unruh radiation in space, similar to the way in which a ship can be pushed towards a dock because there are more waves hitting it from the seaward side. The theory has already predicted galaxy rotation without dark matter, and the fact that if a system is accelerated enough – such as a spinning disc or light bouncing between mirrors – the Unruh waves it sees can be influenced by a shield. Therefore, if a damper is placed above the object, it should produce a new kind of upwards thrust.” Since links can’t be posted in these threads, you can do a web search on “Scientists to study new propulsion idea for spacecraft” at Space Daily to find the complete article.

  36. What about Quantised Inertia (QI) Propulsion?Dr. Mike McCulloch from the University of Plymouth first put forward the idea ofquantised inertia (QI) – through which he believes light can be converted intothrust – in 2007.He has now received $1.3 million from the United States Defense Advanced ResearchProjects Agency (DARPA) for a four-year study which aims to make the concept areality.The QI theory predicts that objects can be pushed by differences in the intensityof so-called Unruh radiation in space similar to the way in which a ship can bepushed towards a dock because there are more waves hitting it from the seawardside.The theory has already predicted galaxy rotation without dark matter and the factthat if a system is accelerated enough – such as a spinning disc or light bouncingbetween mirrors – the Unruh waves it sees can be influenced by a shield.Therefore if a damper is placed above the object” it should produce a new kind ofupwards thrust.””Since links can’t be posted in these threads”””” you can do a web search on “”””Scientists to study new propulsion idea for spacecraft”””” at Space Daily to find the complete article.”””

  43. Not since it’s been replicated so many places by so many people. In fact, every time someone actually followed the instructions.

  44. Not since it’s been replicated so many places by so many people. In fact every time someone actually followed the instructions.

  47. “Actually its 130 year old implications of bog standard physics.” Yep, which explains nothing materially.

  48. “Actually its 130 year old implications of bog standard physics.” Yep which explains nothing materially.”

  49. To be fair, it probably is hogwash. The benefits of it being true are sufficient to justify investigating anyway, but that’s the sensible, default expectation.

  50. To be fair it probably is hogwash. The benefits of it being true are sufficient to justify investigating anyway but that’s the sensible default expectation.

  55. Another Russian troll like WarrenTheApe or Scaryjello…And if they aren’t what would they be saying differently?

  56. Another Russian troll like WarrenTheApe or Scaryjello…And if they aren’t what would they be saying differently?

  57. I seems Hedi Fearn’s group has sabotaged their equipment to make it look like they need more money to continue experimenting. She should be busted for fraud. Their whole concept is a con job.

  58. I seems Hedi Fearn’s group has sabotaged their equipment to make it look like they need more money to continue experimenting. She should be busted for fraud. Their whole concept is a con job.

  62. Hmmmm. There is kinetic energy. There is thermal energy, which is like microscopic kinetic energy. There is gravitational potential energy, strain energy, well understood relationships for energy involving electricity and magnetism. Now, Tom et all introduce a new relationship for energy of a body with relation to the aether. there is an army of apothecaries working out the particulars as we wait.

  63. Hmmmm. There is kinetic energy. There is thermal energy which is like microscopic kinetic energy. There is gravitational potential energy strain energy well understood relationships for energy involving electricity and magnetism. Now Tom et all introduce a new relationship for energy of a body with relation to the aether. there is an army of apothecaries working out the particulars as we wait.

  73. rather than multiple “”replications”””” from garage-level tinkerers “””” “””

  75. Moron, write what you mean. The system no more loses energy than does a resistive heating element–only to the extent the reactive power of the capacitors cannot resonate between reactive elements. So it works so long as it has electrical power.

  79. This Mock Effect is supposed to interact with the aether by fluctuations in mass due to fluctuations in a piezoelectric material’s strain energy. But that energy is carried along with the power supply which is part of the unit – unless solar powered. Overall the system will lose energy as the energy flows from supply to the vibrator (my own term for it) and the vibrator heats up and radiates. Unless solar powered, the system loses energy and becomes infinitesimally lighter because of the mass energy equivalence. When you use a battery powered or even a nuclear powered vibrator it loses energy and becomes lighter.

  81. Come on – it would be better if a National Laboratory in the US were to replicate the results, rather than multiple “replications” from garage-level tinkerers. When you’re claiming new physics – or at least some radically new implication from obscure existing physics – then you’d better show some top-notch validation that removes any ambiguity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Tajmar at Dresden may be a start, but his should by no means be the endpoint before establishing whether this phenomenon is real or not. Maybe DARPA should look at this.

  82. Come on – it would be better if a National Laboratory in the US were to replicate the results rather than multiple replications”” from garage-level tinkerers. When you’re claiming new physics – or at least some radically new implication from obscure existing physics – then you’d better show some top-notch validation that removes any ambiguity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.Tajmar at Dresden may be a start”””” but his should by no means be the endpoint before establishing whether this phenomenon is real or not. Maybe DARPA should look at this.”””

  83. What about Quantised Inertia (QI) Propulsion?

    “Dr. Mike McCulloch, from the University of Plymouth, first put forward the idea of
    quantised inertia (QI) – through which he believes light can be converted into
    thrust – in 2007.

    He has now received $1.3 million from the United States Defense Advanced Research
    Projects Agency (DARPA) for a four-year study which aims to make the concept a
    reality.

    The QI theory predicts that objects can be pushed by differences in the intensity
    of so-called Unruh radiation in space, similar to the way in which a ship can be
    pushed towards a dock because there are more waves hitting it from the seaward
    side.

    The theory has already predicted galaxy rotation without dark matter, and the fact
    that if a system is accelerated enough – such as a spinning disc or light bouncing
    between mirrors – the Unruh waves it sees can be influenced by a shield.
    Therefore, if a damper is placed above the object, it should produce a new kind of
    upwards thrust.”

    Since links can’t be posted in these threads, you can do a web search on “Scientists
    to study new propulsion idea for spacecraft” at Space Daily to find the complete
    article.

  91. Just saying, the MET has had several independent replications… …So maybe you should be more clear.

  92. Just saying the MET has had several independent replications……So maybe you should be more clear.

  98. I seems Hedi Fearn’s group has sabotaged their equipment to make it look like they need more money to continue experimenting. She should be busted for fraud. Their whole concept is a con job.

  99. Lying, Tom? Maybe you ought to put on your spectacles. Right up there in the first few lines of this article is this, and I quote: “Three different tests of the EmDrive were reported of varying degrees of rigor. All of the tests indicated that the claimed thrust is probably attributable to false positives.” As I said, I was summarizing. You were casting stones. Unproductively. Just saying, GoatGuy

  100. Lying Tom? Maybe you ought to put on your spectacles. Right up there in the first few lines of this article is this and I quote: “Three different tests of the EmDrive were reported of varying degrees of rigor. All of the tests indicated that the claimed thrust is probably attributable to false positives.”As I said I was summarizing.You were casting stones. Unproductively. Just sayingGoatGuy”

  102. Its level of TRL is still low but clearly improving. The much larger thrust level should be easier to prove/disprove by the Dresden team – its a little confusing to state lack of independent testing, when the new thruster is about to be tested by a team that basically broke the last one (this time under supervision). It would be interesting to see what effect proving the Mach principle would have on the physics community IF follow-on results continue to validate the claims. May we live in interesting times.

  103. Its level of TRL is still low but clearly improving. The much larger thrust level should be easier to prove/disprove by the Dresden team – its a little confusing to state lack of independent testing when the new thruster is about to be tested by a team that basically broke the last one (this time under supervision). It would be interesting to see what effect proving the Mach principle would have on the physics community IF follow-on results continue to validate the claims. May we live in interesting times.

  104. Hmmmm. There is kinetic energy. There is thermal energy, which is like microscopic kinetic energy. There is gravitational potential energy, strain energy, well understood relationships for energy involving electricity and magnetism. Now, Tom et all introduce a new relationship for energy of a body with relation to the aether. there is an army of apothecaries working out the particulars as we wait.

  111. No need to get too excited about it. Below are links demonstrating some of the already available technologies for space flight much more simple for the purpose that are not publicly known to be used although there are rumor that they are and that the secrecy is part of a larger conspiracy to keep people small by depriving them of knowledge about our true potential. If this is not the case, the a question should be asked why aren’t they used for space flight. Here are the simple demonstration links from light to heavy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo&t=211s&list=PLtHWLvUowpcTaWtyuQSS-fgEPSPikCjr4&index=160 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=006d36WWyaQ&t=96s&list=PLtHWLvUowpcTaWtyuQSS-fgEPSPikCjr4&index=157 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYJXE4FCm7Q&t=0s&list=PLtHWLvUowpcTaWtyuQSS-fgEPSPikCjr4&index=158 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ChsZUwqTeE&t=0s&list=PLtHWLvUowpcTaWtyuQSS-fgEPSPikCjr4&index=159

  112. No need to get too excited about it. Below are links demonstrating some of the already available technologies for space flight much more simple for the purpose that are not publicly known to be used although there are rumor that they are and that the secrecy is part of a larger conspiracy to keep people small by depriving them of knowledge about our true potential. If this is not the case the a question should be asked why aren’t they used for space flight. Here are the simple demonstration links from light to heavy:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo&t=211s&list=PLtHWLvUowpcTaWtyuQSS-fgEPSPikCjr4&index=160https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=006d36WWyaQ&t=96s&list=PLtHWLvUowpcTaWtyuQSS-fgEPSPikCjr4&index=157https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYJXE4FCm7Q&t=0s&list=PLtHWLvUowpcTaWtyuQSS-fgEPSPikCjr4&index=158https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ChsZUwqTeE&t=0s&list=PLtHWLvUowpcTaWtyuQSS-fgEPSPikCjr4&index=159

  113. Actually multiple replicated independent results. Done lying yet? BTW, Paul March, a colleague of Woodwards, says the actual dissipated power in under 100W…

  114. Actually multiple replicated independent results.Done lying yet?BTW Paul March a colleague of Woodwards says the actual dissipated power in under 100W…

  117. ” rather than multiple “replications” from garage-level tinkerers ” <-- Exactly one was a "garage level tinkerer" and he was a colleague of Woodward at Fullerton, since retired. There rest were degreed physicists in their labs from all over. " When you're claiming new physics - or at least some radically new implication from obscure existing physics - then you'd better show some top-notch validation that removes any ambiguity. " <-- Actually its 130 year old implications of bog standard physics.

  118. So… to conclude… No independent test replicated results. Yet 60 mN/kW is claimed. There are no alternative techs that seem very credible. The quantum vacuum thruster folk also march apace. And no one has sent any device to space. Yet. Right? Just saying, GoatGuy

  119. So… to conclude…No independent test replicated results.Yet 60 mN/kW is claimed.There are no alternative techs that seem very credible.The quantum vacuum thruster folk also march apace. And no one has sent any device to space.Yet.Right?Just sayingGoatGuy”

  120. Come on – it would be better if a National Laboratory in the US were to replicate the results, rather than multiple “replications” from garage-level tinkerers. When you’re claiming new physics – or at least some radically new implication from obscure existing physics – then you’d better show some top-notch validation that removes any ambiguity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    Tajmar at Dresden may be a start, but his should by no means be the endpoint before establishing whether this phenomenon is real or not. Maybe DARPA should look at this.

  124. Lying, Tom? Maybe you ought to put on your spectacles. Right up there in the first few lines of this article is this, and I quote: “Three different tests of the EmDrive were reported of varying degrees of rigor. All of the tests indicated that the claimed thrust is probably attributable to false positives.”

    As I said, I was summarizing.
    You were casting stones.
    Unproductively.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

  125. Its level of TRL is still low but clearly improving. The much larger thrust level should be easier to prove/disprove by the Dresden team – its a little confusing to state lack of independent testing, when the new thruster is about to be tested by a team that basically broke the last one (this time under supervision).

    It would be interesting to see what effect proving the Mach principle would have on the physics community IF follow-on results continue to validate the claims.

    May we live in interesting times.

  127. No need to get too excited about it. Below are links demonstrating some of the already available technologies for space flight much more simple for the purpose that are not publicly known to be used although there are rumor that they are and that the secrecy is part of a larger conspiracy to keep people small by depriving them of knowledge about our true potential. If this is not the case, the a question should be asked why aren’t they used for space flight. Here are the simple demonstration links from light to heavy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo&t=211s&list=PLtHWLvUowpcTaWtyuQSS-fgEPSPikCjr4&index=160

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=006d36WWyaQ&t=96s&list=PLtHWLvUowpcTaWtyuQSS-fgEPSPikCjr4&index=157

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYJXE4FCm7Q&t=0s&list=PLtHWLvUowpcTaWtyuQSS-fgEPSPikCjr4&index=158

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ChsZUwqTeE&t=0s&list=PLtHWLvUowpcTaWtyuQSS-fgEPSPikCjr4&index=159

  128. Actually multiple replicated independent results.

    Done lying yet?

    BTW, Paul March, a colleague of Woodwards, says the actual dissipated power in under 100W…

  130. So… to conclude…

    No independent test replicated results.
    Yet 60 mN/kW is claimed.
    There are no alternative techs that seem very credible.
    The quantum vacuum thruster folk also march apace.
    And no one has sent any device to space.
    Yet.

    Right?
    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

Comments are closed.