EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 9

[meberbs]

Extract from a larger argument,

...
 (Saying something rotates in all 3 axes at once doesn't make sense. Things only spin in one direction at once, you might just have to tilt your head to line up coordinate systems.)   ...

meberbs, rotation of a single solid object can occur about two non-parallel axes at the same time, but no more.

See -  quaternions    :-)

No, just one axis evidence : quaternions.

A quaternion is defined as an axis and a rotation angle about that axis.

[spupeng7]

Extract from a larger argument,

...
 (Saying something rotates in all 3 axes at once doesn't make sense. Things only spin in one direction at once, you might just have to tilt your head to line up coordinate systems.)   ...

meberbs, rotation of a single solid object can occur about two non-parallel axes at the same time, but no more.

See -  quaternions    :-)

No, just one axis evidence : quaternions.

A quaternion is defined as an axis and a rotation angle about that axis.

... which is proof that two people can look carefully at the same evidence and see completely different things 

[meberbs]

Extract from a larger argument,

...
 (Saying something rotates in all 3 axes at once doesn't make sense. Things only spin in one direction at once, you might just have to tilt your head to line up coordinate systems.)   ...

meberbs, rotation of a single solid object can occur about two non-parallel axes at the same time, but no more.

See -  quaternions    :-)

No, just one axis evidence : quaternions.

A quaternion is defined as an axis and a rotation angle about that axis.

... which is proof that two people can look carefully at the same evidence and see completely different things 

I am curious how you came to the conclusion of 2 axes from a quaternion when, as I said, the definition of a quaternion is a rotation about a single axis, and quaternions can be used to fully describe an arbitrary orientation of a body.

[as58]

Extract from a larger argument,

...
 (Saying something rotates in all 3 axes at once doesn't make sense. Things only spin in one direction at once, you might just have to tilt your head to line up coordinate systems.)   ...

meberbs, rotation of a single solid object can occur about two non-parallel axes at the same time, but no more.

See -  quaternions    :-)

No, just one axis evidence : quaternions.

A quaternion is defined as an axis and a rotation angle about that axis.

... which is proof that two people can look carefully at the same evidence and see completely different things 

I am curious how you came to the conclusion of 2 axes from a quaternion when, as I said, the definition of a quaternion is a rotation about a single axis, and quaternions can be used to fully describe an arbitrary orientation of a body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_rotation_theorem

[Prunesquallor]

...
Jose':

As I already noted a mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) AKA spacetime by definition permits setting up a thermodynamic cycle that should in theory be able to extract energy from the QV, i.e., degrade or lower the cosmological vacuum energy state of the causally connected universe.  If Shawyer's EMdrives and/or Woodward's Mach-Effect drives work, then this has to be true. ...

Best, Paul M.

Paul,

It looks like that follows if the QV could be used to generate propelllant-less propulsion (something that mainstream science finds unlikely), however I'm not sure if that is the case for a gravitational effect: we can use a gravity assist in order to propel a spacecraft to much higher velocities (e.g the Pioneer 10-11 probes, or the Voyager probes) and  we can use gravity to get energy from a reservoir of water in a hydroelectric dam, but in that last case, the energy is really harvested from the atmospheric process (evaporation and rain driven by the Sun's energy) that is responsible to take the water to the higher height of the reservoir in the first place.  So it looks to me like gravity really can be used for propulsion (a gravity assist), or to rapidly extract energy from a reservoir harvested by another process but not for energy harvesting itself.

I think your term "harvesting" is confusing the question somewhat.

Spacecraft gravity assists are simply momentum exchanges in the heliocentric frame between a spacecraft and a planet via gravitational fields (the planet's velocity will be minutely changed after such an encounter). The planet's orbital momentum was embued by the original formation of the solar system, which came from... ad infinitum.

The potential energy of the water in the reservoir is, as you mentioned, due to the thermal energy from the sun (and atmospheric circulation) which comes from nuclear fusion, which comes from... ad infinitum. 

I think Paul's point is that the energy/momentum potential of the QV could be exchanged in an analogous way given the mutable/degradable assumptions.

[Rodal]

...
Jose':

As I already noted a mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) AKA spacetime by definition permits setting up a thermodynamic cycle that should in theory be able to extract energy from the QV, i.e., degrade or lower the cosmological vacuum energy state of the causally connected universe.  If Shawyer's EMdrives and/or Woodward's Mach-Effect drives work, then this has to be true. ...

Best, Paul M.

Paul,

It looks like that follows if the QV could be used to generate propelllant-less propulsion (something that mainstream science finds unlikely), however I'm not sure if that is the case for a gravitational effect: we can use a gravity assist in order to propel a spacecraft to much higher velocities (e.g the Pioneer 10-11 probes, or the Voyager probes) and  we can use gravity to get energy from a reservoir of water in a hydroelectric dam, but in that last case, the energy is really harvested from the atmospheric process (evaporation and rain driven by the Sun's energy) that is responsible to take the water to the higher height of the reservoir in the first place.  So it looks to me like gravity really can be used for propulsion (a gravity assist), or to rapidly extract energy from a reservoir harvested by another process but not for energy harvesting itself.

I think your term "harvesting" is confusing the question somewhat.

Spacecraft gravity assists are simply momentum exchanges in the heliocentric frame between a spacecraft and a planet via gravitational fields (the planet's velocity will be minutely changed after such an encounter). The planet's orbital momentum was embued by the original formation of the solar system, which came from... ad infinitum.

The potential energy of the water in the reservoir is, as you mentioned, due to the thermal energy from the sun (and atmospheric circulation) which comes from nuclear fusion, which comes from... ad infinitum. 

I think Paul's point is that the energy/momentum potential of the QV could be exchanged in an analogous way given the mutable/degradable assumptions.

You write "I think your term "harvesting" is confusing the question somewhat. " 

But it was not me, it was Paul the one that originally used the word "harvesting" energy :

...
There might be in the guise of the attached 2009 paper by a Dr. Turtur in Germany that experimentally demonstrates that it IS possible to harvest energy from the QV zero point field with electrostatic and/or magnetostatic rotary converters.  Now apply this QV energy harvesting lesson to the EMdrive and all other propellantless propulsion engines, but replace this experiment's rotor with large, time varying E&M fields in the frustum...

Best,  Paul M.

(bolded blue added for emphasis)

Why do you say that "harvesting" is my term? How can I be confusing things by using the same terminology (harvesting) that the post I am responding to ?  and where I state that I disagree with harvesting

On the contrary to your assertion, confusing things would be to use a different terminology than in the original post. It looks like you are the one confusing who said what, by first incorrectly stating that "harvesting" was my term and then removing Paul's wording "harvesting" from his original post and modifying his point to read:

I think Paul's point is that the energy/momentum potential of the QV could be exchanged in an analogous way given the mutable/degradable assumptions.

Paul stated that energy can be harvested from the QV and he wrote "In other words the stiffness of spacetime can be locally reduced under the appropriate dynamic excitation and in doing so create a local variation to the ambient gee field" and " this QV energy harvesting lesson to the EMdrive and all other propellantless propulsion engines," which includes Mach effect devices (propellantless propulsion engines based on gravitation instead of being based on the QV).  Also, I was addressing explanations of the EM Drive based on gravitation instead of the QV.

I said that I disagree (in case that by citing "all other propellantless propulsion engines" Paul intended to include gravitation ) concerning gravitation: that energy cannot be harvested using gravitation. (And concerning harvesting energy from the QV I said that is contrary to mainstream science.)  Your statements regarding gravity assist repeat (using other words) what I stated: that is why I (not Paul) originally cited the example of gravity assist.  What I disagreed with was in harvesting energy using gravitation.

If you disagree with me, please explain how can you harvest  energy using gravitation. 

If you cannot give examples of how to harvest  energy using gravitation then you are not disagreeing with my point.

And if you disagree with the usage of the word "harvesting energy" then you are disagreeing with Paul, not with me. 

[Prunesquallor]

You write "I think your term "harvesting" is confusing the question somewhat. " 

But it was not me, it was Paul the one that originally used the word "harvesting" energy :
...

Why do you say that "harvesting" is my term? How can I be confusing things by using the same terminology (harvesting) that the post I am responding to ?  and where I state that I disagree with harvesting

On the contrary to your assertion, confusing things would be to use a different terminology than in the original post. It looks like you are the one confusing who said what, by first incorrectly stating that "harvesting" was my term and then removing Paul's wording "harvesting" from his original post and modifying his point...
...

And if you disagree with the usage of the word "harvesting energy" then you are disagreeing with Paul, not with me.

Wow.  OK. Paul used the term, you repeated it.  I should have said "I think THE term "harvesting" is confusing the question somewhat."  Better?

The reason it's confusing is that you make a distinction between gravity assist and hydroelectric power as if one is "harvesting" and the other is not. My "ad infinitum" comments were intended to suggest that both momentum transfer via gravitation and the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy are dependent upon differential energy/momentum states that can be traced back in time as far as one wishes. The original "crop" to "harvest" is therefore rather meaningless.

[Star-Drive]

...
Jose':

As I already noted a mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) AKA spacetime by definition permits setting up a thermodynamic cycle that should in theory be able to extract energy from the QV, i.e., degrade or lower the cosmological vacuum energy state of the causally connected universe.  If Shawyer's EMdrives and/or Woodward's Mach-Effect drives work, then this has to be true. ...

Best, Paul M.

Paul,

It looks like that follows if the QV could be used to generate propellant-less propulsion (something that mainstream science finds unlikely), however I'm not sure if that is the case for a gravitational effect: we can use a gravity assist in order to propel a spacecraft to much higher velocities (e.g the Pioneer 10-11 probes, or the Voyager probes) and  we can use gravity to get energy from a reservoir of water in a hydroelectric dam, but in that last case, the energy is really harvested from the atmospheric process (evaporation and rain driven by the Sun's energy) that is responsible to take the water to the higher height of the reservoir in the first place.  So it looks to me like gravity really can be used for propulsion (a gravity assist), or to rapidly extract energy from a reservoir harvested by another process but not for energy harvesting itself.

Jose':

"So it looks to me like gravity really can be used for propulsion (a gravity assist), or to rapidly extract energy from a reservoir harvested by another process but not for energy harvesting itself."

If you can dynamically vary the gravitational/inertial mass of a test mass via say Mach-Effects in an efficient manner, and then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field created by a body like the Earth or any other astronomical body, then allow that mass to fall along the local gee-field vector in its more massive state, but it is then rewound up to its starting point in its lighter mass state, then repeat as required, there can be a net amount of energy transferred from the local gee field to the cyclic variable mass pulley system that can be used to perform work that the pulley system is attached to. 

Now are you saying that the above Mach-Effect cyclic-mass pulley energy extraction system is not a direct gravitational to kinetic energy conversion system, but instead an indirect one like using solar driven rainwater in a water reservoir power generation system?  In the case of the reservoir we are using the sun's solar energy input needed to activate the H2O mass flow required to harvest this solar energy in a continuous manner.  However in the case of the Mach-Effect cyclic-mass pulley energy harvesting system, we are directly harvesting energy from the Earth's gravity field are we not?  As to what this Gravity/Inertial (G/I) energy harvesting process does to the magnitude of the local G-field and how that potential energy would be replenished globally is another topic that probably involves changing the local or even the global time flow rate...

Best, Paul M. 

[Rodal]

...
The reason it's confusing is that you make a distinction between gravity assist and hydroelectric power as if one is "harvesting" and the other is not....

Prunesquallor, No I didn't make such a distinction ! 

On the contrary I stated that in hydroelectric power one is NOT harvesting energy. The point was to show an example (a hydroelectric reservoir) where "it may look like one is harvesting energy from gravitation" but one really is not. The point was to show that one cannot use gravity by itself to harvest energy in a complete cycle.

in that last case, the energy is really harvested from the atmospheric process (evaporation and rain driven by the Sun's energy) that is responsible to take the water to the higher height of the reservoir in the first place.  So it looks to me like gravity really can be used for propulsion (a gravity assist), or to rapidly extract energy from a reservoir harvested by another process but not for energy harvesting itself.

Prunesquallor, I am the one arguing that gravitation cannot be used to harvest energy in a complete cycle.  While it is Paul the one arguing that it can (please read his posts).

[Rodal]

...If you can dynamically vary the gravitational/inertial mass of a test mass via say Mach-Effects in an efficient manner, and then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field created by a body like the Earth or any other astronomical body, then allow that mass to fall along the local gee-field vector in its more massive state, but it is then rewound up to its starting point in its lighter mass state, then repeat as required, there can be a net amount of energy transferred from the local gee field to the cyclic variable mass pulley system that can be used to perform work that the pulley system is attached to.  ...

I think that Gravitation can be used to increase the velocity of a spacecraft in a given direction (not a cycle) for example with respect to the Sun, for example, by using geodesics, as in a gravity assist. 

I do not think that you can harvest energy from gravitation in a cycle.  In your example the problem comes about in the following steps:

then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field

and

  then rewound up to its starting point 

by what means is the test mass so placed ? by other means?

a similar problem as to water reservoir in the hydroelectric dam: you can use gravity to convert the potential energy into electric energy, by exploiting the higher potential energy of the water in the reservori (or by exploiting a geodesic path in a gravity assist) but you cannot generate energy in a cycle, with gravity by itself because you need to place the water -by other means- in the higher state of potential energy, and it is the weather cycle that is responsible for that 

The problem is that gravitation (geodesics) -solely by itself- does not allow you to extract energy in a cycle.

You can use gravity to gain velocity from a stone previously placed at the top of a hill, by letting it fall.
But you have to use other means to put the stone at the top of the hill, and when you do that you are working against gravity.
So in the whole cycle, there is no energy harvested from gravity.

You can use a geodesic path around Jupiter to gain velocity in a "gravity assist" on your way away from the Sun, but you cannot extract energy from gravitational assist in a closed cycle to come back to your original point with respect to the Sun.

[OnlyMe]

...If you can dynamically vary the gravitational/inertial mass of a test mass via say Mach-Effects in an efficient manner, and then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field created by a body like the Earth or any other astronomical body, then allow that mass to fall along the local gee-field vector in its more massive state, but it is then rewound up to its starting point in its lighter mass state, then repeat as required, there can be a net amount of energy transferred from the local gee field to the cyclic variable mass pulley system that can be used to perform work that the pulley system is attached to.  ...

I think that Gravitation can be used to increase the velocity of a spacecraft in a given direction (not a cycle) for example with respect to the Sun, for example, by using geodesics, as in a gravity assist. 

I do not think that you can harvest energy from gravitation in a cycle.  In your example the problem comes about in the following steps:

then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field

and

  then rewound up to its starting point 

by what means is the test mass so placed ? by other means?

a similar problem as to water reservoir in the hydroelectric dam: you can use gravity to convert the potential energy into electric energy, by exploiting the higher potential energy of the water in the reservori (or by exploiting a geodesic path in a gravity assist) but you cannot generate energy in a cycle, with gravity by itself because you need to place the water -by other means- in the higher state of potential energy, and it is the weather cycle that is responsible for that 

The problem is that gravitation (geodesics) -solely by itself- does not allow you to extract energy in a cycle.

You can use gravity to gain velocity from a stone previously placed at the top of a hill, by letting it fall.
But you have to use other means to put the stone at the top of the hill, and when you do that you are working against gravity.
So in the whole cycle, there is no energy harvested from gravity.

You can use a geodesic path around Jupiter to gain velocity in a "gravity assist" on your way away from the Sun, but you cannot extract energy from gravitational assist in a closed cycle to come back to your original point with respect to the Sun.

Dr Rodal,

In reference to this portion of your above comments,
"... You can use gravity to gain velocity from a stone placed at the top of a hill, by letting it fall.
But you have to use other means to put the stone at the top of the hill, and when you do that you are working against gravity. ..."

If one were able to artificially alter the gravitational/inertial mass of an object, (as it seems Paul was suggesting may be possible?), would that not in effect be the same as moving the mass to the top of a hill? If this were possible, the question would really be whether it would require more energy to artificially alter the gravitational/inertial mass than the real harvestable potential energy that change might represent.

BTW I am not convinced that any of the above is actually possible. It seems most of the argument depends on the assumption that the curvature of Spacetime used to describe what we observe as gravitation, is the cause of gravitation. Which is to some extent like claiming that describing a tree as green is why the tree is green. I don't believe we have yet proven that the geometry of general relativity is the cause of gravitation, though it is certainly a good description of the observable effect...

[Rodal]

...If you can dynamically vary the gravitational/inertial mass of a test mass via say Mach-Effects in an efficient manner, and then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field created by a body like the Earth or any other astronomical body, then allow that mass to fall along the local gee-field vector in its more massive state, but it is then rewound up to its starting point in its lighter mass state, then repeat as required, there can be a net amount of energy transferred from the local gee field to the cyclic variable mass pulley system that can be used to perform work that the pulley system is attached to.  ...

I think that Gravitation can be used to increase the velocity of a spacecraft in a given direction (not a cycle) for example with respect to the Sun, for example, by using geodesics, as in a gravity assist. 

I do not think that you can harvest energy from gravitation in a cycle.  In your example the problem comes about in the following steps:

then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field

and

  then rewound up to its starting point 

by what means is the test mass so placed ? by other means?

a similar problem as to water reservoir in the hydroelectric dam: you can use gravity to convert the potential energy into electric energy, by exploiting the higher potential energy of the water in the reservori (or by exploiting a geodesic path in a gravity assist) but you cannot generate energy in a cycle, with gravity by itself because you need to place the water -by other means- in the higher state of potential energy, and it is the weather cycle that is responsible for that 

The problem is that gravitation (geodesics) -solely by itself- does not allow you to extract energy in a cycle.

You can use gravity to gain velocity from a stone previously placed at the top of a hill, by letting it fall.
But you have to use other means to put the stone at the top of the hill, and when you do that you are working against gravity.
So in the whole cycle, there is no energy harvested from gravity.

You can use a geodesic path around Jupiter to gain velocity in a "gravity assist" on your way away from the Sun, but you cannot extract energy from gravitational assist in a closed cycle to come back to your original point with respect to the Sun.

...

If one were able to artificially alter the gravitational/inertial mass of an object, (as it seems Paul was suggesting may be possible?), would that not in effect be the same as moving the mass to the top of a hill? If this were possible, the question would really be whether it would require more energy to artificially alter the gravitational/inertial mass than the real harvestable potential energy that change might represent.

...

If the Mach Effect Hypothesis would be a possible way to generate propellant-less propulsion in  Space (which I understand maybe what Paul is referring to), I still think that one would not be able to harvest energy from it, because more energy would have to be consumed to produce any such force in a closed cycle, due to entropy.

Explicitly, concerning Woodward Mach Effect Hypothesis I notice that Woodward did not consider any dissipation mechanism when calculating the Mach effect propulsion force with the simple formulas.  The viscoelastic dissipation in the piezoelectric material that is responsible for damping and hence for the finite amplitude of the response (the fact that Q is not infinite).  The progressive internal damage to the material and hence the entropy dissipation that is responsible for finite fatigue life of the piezoelectric materials involved in vibration, the decrease in modulus of elasticity with time that such fatigue entails (and hence the decrease in the concomitant piezoelectric force with time).  Also the formulas that I have seen assume speeds much lower than the speed of light and do not take into account what would happen at speeds becoming a fraction of the speed of light.

 It seems to me that any attempt to "engineer a geodesic" to enable propellant-less propulsion using General Relativity should entail an energy input to "engineer the geodesic" (whether in the Alcubierre scheme, or in the Woodward hypothesis or any such scheme using GR) that will be more than any energy that can be extracted from it in a closed cycle, so that in a closed-cycle no energy should be able to be gathered from a General Relativity effect (on the contrary, it seems to me that there should be a net energy loss, due to entropy), although it still may be possible (?) to use General Relativity (in theory) for propulsion.  For example, using the Alcubierre scheme, a huge amount of energy would be required.  Or in "engineering a wormhole" and keeping it stable, keeping it from closing, would require a huge amount of energy.

[X_RaY]

...If you can dynamically vary the gravitational/inertial mass of a test mass via say Mach-Effects in an efficient manner, and then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field created by a body like the Earth or any other astronomical body, then allow that mass to fall along the local gee-field vector in its more massive state, but it is then rewound up to its starting point in its lighter mass state, then repeat as required, there can be a net amount of energy transferred from the local gee field to the cyclic variable mass pulley system that can be used to perform work that the pulley system is attached to.  ...

I think that Gravitation can be used to increase the velocity of a spacecraft in a given direction (not a cycle) for example with respect to the Sun, for example, by using geodesics, as in a gravity assist. 

I do not think that you can harvest energy from gravitation in a cycle.  In your example the problem comes about in the following steps:

then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field

and

  then rewound up to its starting point 

by what means is the test mass so placed ? by other means?

a similar problem as to water reservoir in the hydroelectric dam: you can use gravity to convert the potential energy into electric energy, by exploiting the higher potential energy of the water in the reservori (or by exploiting a geodesic path in a gravity assist) but you cannot generate energy in a cycle, with gravity by itself because you need to place the water -by other means- in the higher state of potential energy, and it is the weather cycle that is responsible for that 

The problem is that gravitation (geodesics) -solely by itself- does not allow you to extract energy in a cycle.

You can use gravity to gain velocity from a stone previously placed at the top of a hill, by letting it fall.
But you have to use other means to put the stone at the top of the hill, and when you do that you are working against gravity.
So in the whole cycle, there is no energy harvested from gravity.

You can use a geodesic path around Jupiter to gain velocity in a "gravity assist" on your way away from the Sun, but you cannot extract energy from gravitational assist in a closed cycle to come back to your original point with respect to the Sun.

...

If one were able to artificially alter the gravitational/inertial mass of an object, (as it seems Paul was suggesting may be possible?), would that not in effect be the same as moving the mass to the top of a hill? If this were possible, the question would really be whether it would require more energy to artificially alter the gravitational/inertial mass than the real harvestable potential energy that change might represent.

...

If the Mach Effect Hypothesis would be a possible way to generate propellant-less propulsion in  Space (which I understand maybe what Paul is referring to), I still think that one would not be able to harvest energy from it, because more energy would have to be consumed to produce any such force in a closed cycle, due to entropy.

Explicitly, concerning Woodward Mach Effect Hypothesis I notice that Woodward did not consider any dissipation mechanism when calculating the Mach effect propulsion force with the simple formulas.  The viscoelastic dissipation in the piezoelectric material that is responsible for damping and hence for the finite amplitude of the response (the fact that Q is not infinite).  The progressive internal damage to the material and hence the entropy dissipation that is responsible for finite fatigue life of the piezoelectric materials involved in vibration, the decrease in modulus of elasticity with time that such fatigue entails (and hence the decrease in the concomitant piezoelectric force with time).  Also the formulas that I have seen assume speeds much lower than the speed of light and do not take into account what would happen at speeds becoming a fraction of the speed of light.

 It seems to me that any attempt to "engineer a geodesic" to enable propellant-less propulsion using General Relativity should entail an energy input to "engineer the geodesic" (whether in the Alcubierre scheme, or in the Woodward hypothesis or any such scheme using GR) that will be more than any energy that can be extracted from it in a closed cycle, so that in a closed-cycle no energy should be able to be gathered from a General Relativity effect (on the contrary, it seems to me that there should be a net energy loss, due to entropy), although it still may be possible (?) to use General Relativity (in theory) for propulsion.  For example, using the Alcubierre scheme, a huge amount of energy would be required.  Or in "engineering a wormhole" and keeping it stable, keeping it from closing, would require a huge amount of energy.

Or in "engineering a wormhole" and keeping it stable, keeping it from closing, would require a huge amount of energy.

Yes exactly! and in fact a exotic form of matter with negative mass/energy density would be needed also.
http://chalkdustmagazine.com/features/interstellar-travel-the-mathematics-of-wormholes/

The only way to "harvest" energy from the ZPF would be a even lower energy state.(Maybe we are able to convert conventional energy to excite the ZPF, i.e. energy goes into the ZPF itself and we can use this flow?!) The only possibility I know of is the casimir effect where a force is present but can we get energy out of the phenomenon??
Our reality seems to be different: in every process or kind of work that is done the related (global)entropy grows.
The analogy to the hydroelectric power plant is applicable in this regard.

[spupeng7]

...If you can dynamically vary the gravitational/inertial mass of a test mass via say Mach-Effects in an efficient manner, and then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field created by a body like the Earth or any other astronomical body, then allow that mass to fall along the local gee-field vector in its more massive state, but it is then rewound up to its starting point in its lighter mass state, then repeat as required, there can be a net amount of energy transferred from the local gee field to the cyclic variable mass pulley system that can be used to perform work that the pulley system is attached to.  ...

I think that Gravitation can be used to increase the velocity of a spacecraft in a given direction (not a cycle) for example with respect to the Sun, for example, by using geodesics, as in a gravity assist. 

I do not think that you can harvest energy from gravitation in a cycle.  In your example the problem comes about in the following steps:

then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field

and

  then rewound up to its starting point 

by what means is the test mass so placed ? by other means?

a similar problem as to water reservoir in the hydroelectric dam: you can use gravity to convert the potential energy into electric energy, by exploiting the higher potential energy of the water in the reservori (or by exploiting a geodesic path in a gravity assist) but you cannot generate energy in a cycle, with gravity by itself because you need to place the water -by other means- in the higher state of potential energy, and it is the weather cycle that is responsible for that 

The problem is that gravitation (geodesics) -solely by itself- does not allow you to extract energy in a cycle.

You can use gravity to gain velocity from a stone previously placed at the top of a hill, by letting it fall.
But you have to use other means to put the stone at the top of the hill, and when you do that you are working against gravity.
So in the whole cycle, there is no energy harvested from gravity.

You can use a geodesic path around Jupiter to gain velocity in a "gravity assist" on your way away from the Sun, but you cannot extract energy from gravitational assist in a closed cycle to come back to your original point with respect to the Sun.

Dr Rodal,

In reference to this portion of your above comments,
"... You can use gravity to gain velocity from a stone placed at the top of a hill, by letting it fall.
But you have to use other means to put the stone at the top of the hill, and when you do that you are working against gravity. ..."

If one were able to artificially alter the gravitational/inertial mass of an object, (as it seems Paul was suggesting may be possible?), would that not in effect be the same as moving the mass to the top of a hill? If this were possible, the question would really be whether it would require more energy to artificially alter the gravitational/inertial mass than the real harvestable potential energy that change might represent.

BTW I am not convinced that any of the above is actually possible. It seems most of the argument depends on the assumption that the curvature of Spacetime used to describe what we observe as gravitation, is the cause of gravitation. Which is to some extent like claiming that describing a tree as green is why the tree is green. I don't believe we have yet proven that the geometry of general relativity is the cause of gravitation, though it is certainly a good description of the observable effect...

What a delectable word is 'if'
Oh where would we be without if
Maybe stuck up a tree on a planet
Incapable of nutation...

[OttO]

If there is thrust how can we explain non violation of momentum, energy etc...
Always the same questions ? 
But initially the legend is that there was some displacement without explanation in some satellites...

What if there is some displacement WITHOUT thrust?

Perhaps the analogy with swimming in curve space is not crazy.

Translation and Rotation of Transformation Media under Electromagnetic Pulse
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1610/1610.04687.pdf

"Here we investigate responses of three transformation media under electromagnetic pulses, and find that pulse radiation can induce unbalanced net force on transformation media, which will cause translation and rotation of transformation media although their final momentum can still be zero."

EDIT: Added following paper
Rescuing the concept of swimming in curved spacetime
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.06183.pdf

[Mulletron]

...
Mulletron:

One of the ideas behind Sonny White's mutable and degradable Quantum Vacuum (QV) conjecture is that it and GRT spacetime are one and the same thing.  If this conjecture truly reflects the real world, then the GRT spacetime stiffness "constant" of 8*Pi*G / c^4 is also locally mutable under large (>100kV/m), time-varying (>10^9 Hz)  E&M fields.  In other words the stiffness of spacetime can be locally reduced under the appropriate dynamic excitation and in doing so create a local variation to the ambient gee field. 

Is there any proof that this could be real other than what is presented in the NASA/JSC Eagleworks Lab papers published to date?  There might be in the guise of the attached 2009 paper by a Dr. Turtur in Germany that experimentally demonstrates that it IS possible to harvest energy from the QV zero point field with electrostatic and/or magnetostatic rotary converters.  Now apply this QV energy harvesting lesson to the EMdrive and all other propellantless propulsion engines, but replace this experiment's rotor with large, time varying E&M fields in the frustum...

Best,  Paul M.

It is healthy that the consequences of these theories are being honestly examined by Star-Drive as to their strange consequences, rather than being "swept under the rug".  From the above discussion by Star-Drive it appears  clear that Sonny White's theory about a degradable QV embraces the idea that energy can be harvested from the QV.  This is a very controversial consequence of the theory.  A lot has been written about the energy problem concerning that a force can be produced without expelling any propellants: http://emdrive.wiki/Energy_Conservation . 

[image redacted for brevity]

My understanding is that Dr. McCulloch also embraces the idea that energy can be harvested from the Quantum Vacuum, according to McCulloch's theory.

Notsosureofit has been trying to resolve this by examining the entropy in General Relativity, but my understanding is that the progress is slow and no final conclusion has been reached.

Frobnicat early on showed that if the EM Drive can produce a constant force, this force could be utilized (in theory) to harvest energy.  Actually, Frobnicat asked:

1) if the EM Drive works as proposed, it looks like it would be more immediately exploitable for economic purposes (not necessarily by the scheme sketched by Frobnicat, but by any other means as discussed above by Star-Drive) as a means to produce practically "free energy" for mankind than for Interstellar Travel.

2)  if the EM Drive works as proposed, it looks like extra EM Drives on-board could harvest energy from the QV and therefore avoid having to have (at least in part, or ideally at all) a means of providing electric energy to the EM Drive's providing propulsion, as that energy to produce the force could be harvested from the QV instead of being produced by onboard nuclear reaction or other means to provide electric energy.

I am resurrecting these questions by Frobnicat, because at the time that Frobnicat posed them, Star-Drive was momentarily not active in the forum, and because Star-Drive's latest post discusses the idea that energy may be harvestable from the QV.

On Turtur's experiments:

https://www.psiram.com/en/index.php/Claus_Wilhelm_Turtur

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claus_Turtur

http://vixra.org/author/claus_wilhelm_turtur

quote from http://www.ostfalia.de/export/sites/default/de/pws/turtur/images/1_Schrift_03f_englisch.pdf

Dr. Martin Tajmar from AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH at
Seibersdorf near Wien (Head of Space Propulsion & Advanced Concepts) did
many discussions with me, coming to the result that he tried together with
Harald Chmela to further develop the electrostatic vacuum-energy-rotor into a
version with rigidly fixed axis. (Unfortunately up to now, the experiments did
not have success.)

Jose':

As I already noted a mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) AKA spacetime by definition permits setting up a thermodynamic cycle that should in theory be able to extract energy from the QV, i.e., degrade or lower the cosmological vacuum energy state of the causally connected universe.  If Shawyer's EMdrives and/or Woodward's Mach-Effect drives work, then this has to be true.  For me this does NOT mean we are creating a perpetual motion machine, but simply tapping into another energy storage source that just happens to be the cosmological gravitational field.  What's the price for this kind of energy extraction process?  I think it just means our energy loans hasten the cooling of the average 2.73K background temperature of the cosmos and perhaps increase the expansion rate of the universe as well, i.e., there is no free lunch.  However look at the magnitude of the potential energy reserves contained in the cosmological gravitational field.  If we are tapping just the potential energy contained in all the estimated ~1x10^80 atoms in the causally connected universe that created this background gravitational field, and apply E = m*c^2 to that mass, we could run a whole galactic empires from same for a billion years and not even put a dent in it...

Best, Paul M.

One of the ideas behind Sonny White's mutable and degradable Quantum
Vacuum (QV) conjecture is that it and GRT spacetime are one and the
same thing. 

Okay, let's proceed with the assumption (for the sake of examining the idea,
not assuming it's really true) and see where we end up with respect to the
conservation of energy issue. It follows logically that if one is assuming
the ground state of all the quantum fields to be one and the same with what we
experience as spacetime (that's a fair assumption as I still haven't seen
definitive proof of what EXACTLY spacetime really truly is...just a stage for all
known interactions or the result of the interactions or something
else???...etc.) as defined in Relativity (flat and curved), then energy
conservation should follow with what we've learned from the General theory (because you said that the QV and the GRT spacetime are one and the same).
I've been researching COE in GR over the past several weeks, trying to
figure out how energy is conserved when light is redshifted by gravitational and
cosmological redshift*, so this is great timing. I found it useful to study
COE in cosmological redshifts, as the cosmological phenomenon is a special
case to the more general gravitational redshift.** So, I can use what's
happening at the very large scales to understand what's happening with COE
here on Earth with gravitational redshift (like how COE works with the Pound
Rebka experiment), and by extension I can use this understand to understand
COE within the EmDrive, IF and only IF the wavelength stretching phenomenon
in the frustum is producing an acceleration field.

Not surprisingly, the notion of energy conservation in GR isn't well
defined. There are conflicting views. Let's go through some.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

Expansion of the universe leading to cosmological redshift

The Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) has red-shifted over billions of
years.
Each photon gets redder and redder.  What happens to this energy?
Cosmologists model the expanding universe with Friedmann-Robertson-Walker
(FRW) spacetimes.  (The familiar "expanding balloon speckled with galaxies"
belongs to this class of models.) The FRW spacetimes are neither static nor
asymptotically flat.  Those who harbor no qualms about
pseudo-tensors will say that radiant energy becomes gravitational energy.
Others will say that the energy is simply lost.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

And in my experience, saying "there's energy in the gravitational
field, but it's negative, so it exactly cancels the energy you think is
being gained in the matter fields" does not actually increase anyone's
understanding - it just quiets them down. Whereas if you say "in
general relativity spacetime can give energy to matter, or absorb it from
matter, so that the total energy simply isn't conserved," they might be
surprised but I think most people do actually gain some understanding
thereby.

Energy isn't conserved; it changes because spacetime does. See, that wasn't
so hard, was it?

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/296/is-energy-really-conserved

Thus, the lesson to learn is that Energy is only conserved if there's
translational time symmetry in the problem.

Which brings us to General Relativity: in several interesting cases in GR,
it's simply impossible to properly define a "time" direction! Technically
speaking, this would imply a certain global property (called "global
hyperbolicity") which not all 4-dimensional spacetimes have. So, in general,
Energy is not conserved in GR.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/19/ask-ethan-when-a-photon-gets-redshifted-where-does-the-energy-go/#237a2c774891

Strictly speaking, as we mentioned before, energy is not defined for
the Universe itself in General Relativity. But if we took the fabric of the
Universe itself and caused it to contract, what would happen to the photons
inside of it? A contracting Universe would do work on the photons (instead
of the other way around), and would cause them to gain energy.

How much energy? Exactly as much as they lost when the Universe expanded.

So yes, Christiaan, as the Universe expands, photons lose energy. But that
doesn't mean energy isn't conserved; it means that the energy goes into the
Universe's expansion itself, in the form of work. And if the Universe ever
reverses the expansion and contracts again, that work will be done in
reverse, and will go right back into the photons inside.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13577/photons-in-expanding-space-how-is-energy-conserved
Summary is that COE is broken GR because there's no truly inertial frames.

There's other info to consider about the properties of the false vacuum (aka dark energy) to consider.
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth3.html

The peculiar properties of the false vacuum stem from its pressure, which is large and negative (see box on the right). Mechanically such a negative pressure corresponds to a suction, which does not sound like something that would drive the Universe into a period of rapid expansion. The mechanical effects of pressure, however, depend on pressure differences, so they are unimportant if the pressure is reasonably uniform. According to general relativity, however, there is a gravitational effect that is very important under these circumstances. Pressures, like energy densities, create gravitational fields, and in particular a positive pressure creates an attractive gravitational field. The negative pressure of the false vacuum, therefore, creates a repulsive gravitational field, which is the driving force behind inflation.

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-hold-at-the-largest-scale-of-the-universe
This is a VERY good discussion.

Okay, so a quick deep dive on the issue reveals that COE doesn't hold in GR, or it does hold and work is being done on the universe. I'm not trying to figure out the unsolved problems of cosmology here. What I can tell you from looking this issue is that you cannot guarantee COE in curved spacetime. In order to ensure COE holds, you must have truly inertial frames, a flat spacetime, and time translation symmetry. This tells me that for those who are touting gravitational theories to explain thrust from an EmDrive, COE may not even apply.

* https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11859.html
** http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/610-what-is-the-difference-between-the-doppler-redshift-and-the-gravitational-or-cosmological-redshift-advanced

In the case of distant objects where the expansion of the universe
becomes an important factor, the redshift is referred to as the
"cosmological redshift" and it is due to an entirely different effect. According to
general relativity, the expansion of the universe does not consist of objects
actually moving away from each other - rather, the space between these objects
stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be stretched, and
its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted.

(This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the
"gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime
changes the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime.

[Rodal]

...

(This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the
"gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime
changes the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime.

Notice that the word entropy does not appear in any of that discussion.  Entropy is not an inherent part of Einstein's General Relativity.

There are many things that are possible under General Relativity that become extremely unlikely to occur because of entropy.

Similarly there are many things that are possible under Quantum Mechanics that become extremely unlikely to occur because of entropy.

 Penrose pointed out that gravity plays an important role in entropy increase because gravity causes dispersed matter to accumulate into stars, which collapse eventually into black holes. Most massive galaxies (including our own Milky Way) have a super-massive black hole (the largest type of black hole) at its center, on the order of hundreds of thousands to billions of solar masses, all that huge amount of matter compressed into a size smaller than our own solar system .  The entropy of a black hole is proportional to the surface area of the black hole's event horizon.    Hawking  showed that black holes have the maximum possible entropy of any object of equal size.

To understand what is possible and what is not possible we must take into account entropy.

[WarpTech]

...

(This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the
"gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime
changes the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime.

[/quote]

IMO, the most sensible way to think of this is not that the photons or the light gain or lose energy. It is the clocks and rulers that change scale. On the cosmological scale, as entropy increases, everything nearby eventually collapses into a black hole. Given the effect of "length contraction", it makes the most sense to me that the cosmological redshift and the FRW spacetime, should be interpreted such that it is our local ruler that is shrinking. Over billions of years, our ruler has contracted relative to light that was emitted billions of years ago, making it's wavelength appear to be longer when it gets here.

[X_RaY]

...

(This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the
"gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime
changes the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime.

IMO, the most sensible way to think of this is not that the photons or the light gain or lose energy. It is the clocks and rulers that change scale. On the cosmological scale, as entropy increases, everything nearby eventually collapses into a black hole. Given the effect of "length contraction", it makes the most sense to me that the cosmological redshift and the FRW spacetime, should be interpreted such that it is our local ruler that is shrinking. Over billions of years, our ruler has contracted relative to light that was emitted billions of years ago, making it's wavelength appear to be longer when it gets here.

I guess I have a Thread 3 deja vu
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1404523#msg1404523 

[Rodal]

...

(This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the
"gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime
changes the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime

IMO, the most sensible way to think of this is not that the photons or the light gain or lose energy. It is the clocks and rulers that change scale. On the cosmological scale, as entropy increases, everything nearby eventually collapses into a black hole. Given the effect of "length contraction", it makes the most sense to me that the cosmological redshift and the FRW spacetime, should be interpreted such that it is our local ruler that is shrinking. Over billions of years, our ruler has contracted relative to light that was emitted billions of years ago, making it's wavelength appear to be longer when it gets here.

Now I better understand the role of the damping parameter in your theory 

"
 ζ is the Damping factor, which in the case of the Schwarzschild solution would be related to the gravitational potential;

ζ² = 2G₀M/Rc₀²

In terms of entropy and the arrow of time, the oscillators are running down, losing energy and due to this, rulers are contracting....In a sense, Dark Energy in my model is the equilibrium state of the QV, which is responsible for the "local" length of a ruler."