Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 407928 times)

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2488
  • Liked: 5
  • Melbourne, Australia
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1100 on: 02/10/2011 02:18 AM »
Would it help if Mars had a large moon?

This is the M-E thread, after all...

...

Talking about moving whole moons or large asteroids?  You've got to stop thinking on a small scale.  :)

Some of those Earth size planets Kepler is finding could be moved into the Earth and Mars trojan points. Just pick ones that have a decent atmosphere and magnetic field.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2131
  • Liked: 6
  • KISS Consultant
  • Cow Hampshire
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1101 on: 02/10/2011 07:36 PM »


Well I've actually proposed the first gated wormholes to be established between Titan and Mars, as a conduit to vent Titanian atmosphere into the Martian atmosphere, densifying it rather quickly (to Earth-normal levels within a few years) for rapid terraforming of the Martian surface.

This sort of project would help work out all the kinks of operating stargates at much longer distances.

The biggest problem with terraforming Mars is its very weak magnetic field. Humans wouldn't be able to survive there for long with the bombardment of cosmic rays. I don't really know any way around that problem besides habitation modules.

Actually this isnt really a significant problem. Mars is twice as far from the sun, so it gets a quarter of the insolation, which also means one quarter of the solar cosmic rays, that Earth does.

Secondly, to reach Earth normal pressure at martian sea level will actually require more atmosphere mass due to the lower gravity, than Earth has, so you will see a significantly greater effect of the atmosphere blocking more cosmic rays on Mars than it does on Earth.

While cosmic rays may remain an issue for martian airline travel at high altitudes, at martian sea level all you would need is a hat with a wide brim. Atmospheric pressure falls off more slowly under Martian gravity, so the Martian atmosphere air column will be much higher than Earth, possibly as much as 50% more, as the atmosphere reaches Earth normal.

This means you'll see much higher cloud cover, and the cosmic rays will actually serve to improve cloud formation despite the lower average humidty.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2131
  • Liked: 6
  • KISS Consultant
  • Cow Hampshire
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1102 on: 02/10/2011 07:38 PM »
Would it help if Mars had a large moon?

This is the M-E thread, after all...

...

Talking about moving whole moons or large asteroids?  You've got to stop thinking on a small scale.  :)

Some of those Earth size planets Kepler is finding could be moved into the Earth and Mars trojan points. Just pick ones that have a decent atmosphere and magnetic field.

Actually, I've thought that moving Ceres into orbit around Mars may be a very good long term goal. It would help restart the Martian geological/tectonic cycle, help generate an electromagnetic field, plus Ceres is a pretty wet place, so its ices should melt and we'd wind up with an oceanic moon, possibly drain the water from Ceres down to the Martian surface to expand the size of the northern ocean and improve the overall water cycle.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2131
  • Liked: 6
  • KISS Consultant
  • Cow Hampshire
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1103 on: 02/10/2011 07:42 PM »
I was thinking the same.  The practical difficulties of establishing a wormhole between planetary surfaces would have to be huge:

Accurate targeting
Constantly compensating for relative movement
Pressure differentials
Biological cross contamination

Not to mention safety. That's a lot of energy being manipulated. Not sure I want that on the surface of the planet I live on...

Most likely if a wormhole can be created and targeted, it would be from interplanetary space (perhaps an Earth Trojan point?) to somewhere in the vicinity of the destination star. Then ME spacecraft would ferry people from Earth through the wormhole and on to their destination.

I wouldn't put one anywhere near Earth, in case something bad happened. Like an asteroid from the destination system coming through at high relative velocity. Even though it would be unlikely to hit Earth, it could smash the wormhole generator, or waiting ship, and flood near-Earth space with debris.

Well I've actually proposed the first gated wormholes to be established between Titan and Mars, as a conduit to vent Titanian atmosphere into the Martian atmosphere, densifying it rather quickly (to Earth-normal levels within a few years) for rapid terraforming of the Martian surface.

This sort of project would help work out all the kinks of operating stargates at much longer distances.
Did you consider atmosphere transfer from Venus to Mars, or perhaps to Mars from a combination of sources? Water from some ice moons, for example. Would the water pressure be high enough? Just thinking about the make-up of the resulting Martian atmosphere.

I did consider atmosphere from Venus, but it turns out Venus has very little nitrogen in its atmosphere. When Mars is warmed up a few degrees, the CO2 in ice and regolith thats there already will outgass over a few decades to produce about 300 millibars of CO2 atmosphere. With the introduction of plant life, most of this CO2 will eventually become O2, so what Mars needs most is Nitrogen to fill out the rest of its atmospheric needs. Titan is the place to get it.

But yes, water could be gotten from Europa or Enceladus, or just from Ceres if the current estimates of 15% water on Ceres hold out when our probe gets there.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1011
  • Liked: 142
  • Bracknell, England
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1104 on: 02/10/2011 08:03 PM »
Quote from: mlorrey link=topic=13020.msg691215#msg691215
Mars is twice as far from the sun, so it gets a quarter of the insolation
[/quote

Mars is at 1.52 au, so gets about 1/2.3 as much insolation.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2131
  • Liked: 6
  • KISS Consultant
  • Cow Hampshire
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1105 on: 02/14/2011 07:43 PM »
Quote from: mlorrey link=topic=13020.msg691215#msg691215
Mars is twice as far from the sun, so it gets a quarter of the insolation

Mars is at 1.52 au, so gets about 1/2.3 as much insolation.

Fair enough. So it gets about 40% of the insolation and 40% of the solar cosmic rays as Earth gets. They both get equivalent amounts of galactic cosmic rays.

My other points still stand: a deeper and more massive air column means more shielding than Earth's atmosphere provides. Cosmic rays still get through Earth's magnetic field, and are a problem only if someone lives permanently at 30,000 ft altitude (basically on top of Mt Everest). Most of the mass of Earth's atmosphere is below that altitude.
« Last Edit: 02/14/2011 07:43 PM by mlorrey »

Offline Toddburkett

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1106 on: 02/18/2011 12:05 AM »
supposing that wormholes are indeed possible without time paradoxes and stuff... would we be able to DETECT a wormhole???

i mean... lets say we are a bit xenophobic and are suspicious of the possibility of aliens having easy access to our star system. Would we be able to detect such breaches in our defenses?

What defenses? 

We don't even know where all the Earth Orbit crossing objects in our solar system are, and have no way to stop any impactors we might detect.

Worrying about alien wormholes is a bit premature. If hostile aliens have that technology already we're stuffed.

And I for one would welcome our new alien overlords.  :)

Interesting concept...

The industrial level required to send even a small probe from Alpha Centauri on a 75 year sublight trip is approximately equivalent to the year 2500 A.D. If it was actually a war of conquest with military-level like devotion of the industrial complex, maybe then we could hope to fight back because their equivalent tech and industrial development level would be lower.

So if we shoot at the alien equivalents of NASA, we'd be stuffed because then the alien equivalent of the USAF rolls in.


If we had wormhole technology and wanted to send one end of the worm hole to another star we could use the wormhole to provide fuel for the spaceship. That way we wouldn't have to carry any fuel and that mass wouldn't work against us. For instance we could drop the earthbound wormhole into the deep ocean and send a stream of water through the wormhole to the spaceship at thousands of pounds per square inch into a reaction chamber (containment chamber) and then to a nozzle outlet at the back of the spaceship. If we didn't want to drop it into deep ocean we could drop it onto the surface of Venus, that's 1300 psi, mostly carbon dioxide. If you really want to get fancy, drop one onto Jupiter and you can get as much expansion as you want, up to millions of psi. You could push a planet around with that kind of pressure, eventually.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2131
  • Liked: 6
  • KISS Consultant
  • Cow Hampshire
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1107 on: 02/18/2011 03:25 AM »
supposing that wormholes are indeed possible without time paradoxes and stuff... would we be able to DETECT a wormhole???

i mean... lets say we are a bit xenophobic and are suspicious of the possibility of aliens having easy access to our star system. Would we be able to detect such breaches in our defenses?

What defenses? 

We don't even know where all the Earth Orbit crossing objects in our solar system are, and have no way to stop any impactors we might detect.

Worrying about alien wormholes is a bit premature. If hostile aliens have that technology already we're stuffed.

And I for one would welcome our new alien overlords.  :)

Interesting concept...

The industrial level required to send even a small probe from Alpha Centauri on a 75 year sublight trip is approximately equivalent to the year 2500 A.D. If it was actually a war of conquest with military-level like devotion of the industrial complex, maybe then we could hope to fight back because their equivalent tech and industrial development level would be lower.

So if we shoot at the alien equivalents of NASA, we'd be stuffed because then the alien equivalent of the USAF rolls in.

I don't think we will have to wait 5 centuries to get warp drive technology, and certainly not to merely get Mach-effect level impulse technology. With impulse thrusters you could easily make the trip to or from Alpha Centauri in a generation.

However, I consider the real potential unknown threat to be if/when we discover/identify the red dwarf Nemesis thought by some to be sitting ~1 light year away in a highly elliptical orbit. Such a distance is quite within the limits of present day technology to reach in a trip of less than 20 years (pulsed fusion propulsion with thermonuclear warheads), which means if any intelligence evolved on such a world, assuming it exists, then there is a true potential threat there.

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
  • Liked: 18
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1108 on: 02/18/2011 04:40 AM »
Reader GoatGuy at Nextbigfuture has this to say on the main ME conjecture:

Quote
FINALLY, the Mach Effect itself poses serious violations-of-physics problems, which most likely obviate its existence. Imagine for the moment that two equations of MachEffect vehicles are true:

A = ΔV = KME PELECTRIC / M
V = KME PELECTRIC T / M

EKINETIC = MV
EKINETIC = M ( KME PELECTRIC T / M )
EKINETIC = KPT/M

Which is to say the kinetic energy rises per the square of time ... since the K and E and M are constants. But, the energy put into the system is linear over time. Now - connect the dots - and you'll realize that when T = (2M)/(KP) ... the amount of electric energy input to the Mach device equals the amount of kinetic energy of the craft itself. After that, the craft's energy exceeds the electrical energy input...
FACTOR                      VALUE   UNITS       NOTES
-------------  ------------------------  ------------  -----------------------------------------------------------------
Mass                       10,000.00   kg             10 ton craft
K                                        0.01   N/W           low, but real conversion factor
P                        9,800,000.00    W              power needed for "1 G"
2M/KP                           20.41    sec            sec, from dead stop, to kinetic energy exceeding electrical imput
A                                         9.80   m/s          Acceleration of craft
V                                    200.00   m/s           velocity at cut-over where kinetic exceeds electrical
E                          200,000,000   J                Kinetic energy (== electrical input) at that point

It doesn't matter one whit whether the ME force (K) is really weak, or really strong - the equation works out to some time T where the kinetic energy of the moving vessel exceeds the energy actually put into it. After that point, it is a perpetual-motion machine (conceptually).

Because it's beyond me, I'm copying it here in case this wasn't already covered earlier in this thread.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/making-stargates-science-of-absurdly.html#comment-150634322

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2131
  • Liked: 6
  • KISS Consultant
  • Cow Hampshire
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1109 on: 02/18/2011 04:52 AM »
Reader GoatGuy at Nextbigfuture has this to say on the main ME conjecture:

Quote
FINALLY, the Mach Effect itself poses serious violations-of-physics problems, which most likely obviate its existence. Imagine for the moment that two equations of MachEffect vehicles are true:

A = ΔV = KME PELECTRIC / M
V = KME PELECTRIC T / M

EKINETIC = MV
EKINETIC = M ( KME PELECTRIC T / M )
EKINETIC = KPT/M

Which is to say the kinetic energy rises per the square of time ... since the K and E and M are constants. But, the energy put into the system is linear over time. Now - connect the dots - and you'll realize that when T = (2M)/(KP) ... the amount of electric energy input to the Mach device equals the amount of kinetic energy of the craft itself. After that, the craft's energy exceeds the electrical energy input...
FACTOR                      VALUE   UNITS       NOTES
-------------  ------------------------  ------------  -----------------------------------------------------------------
Mass                       10,000.00   kg             10 ton craft
K                                        0.01   N/W           low, but real conversion factor
P                        9,800,000.00    W              power needed for "1 G"
2M/KP                           20.41    sec            sec, from dead stop, to kinetic energy exceeding electrical imput
A                                         9.80   m/s          Acceleration of craft
V                                    200.00   m/s           velocity at cut-over where kinetic exceeds electrical
E                          200,000,000   J                Kinetic energy (== electrical input) at that point

It doesn't matter one whit whether the ME force (K) is really weak, or really strong - the equation works out to some time T where the kinetic energy of the moving vessel exceeds the energy actually put into it. After that point, it is a perpetual-motion machine (conceptually).

Because it's beyond me, I'm copying it here in case this wasn't already covered earlier in this thread.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/making-stargates-science-of-absurdly.html#comment-150634322

I've seen this sort of criticism before, typically it is because they are using bad equations that form a false conjecture, a straw man, with which to debunk the idea, rather than using the actual equations that Woodward has published and which are actual physics compliant with general relativity.

However the most simple explanation for why, even if this guys equations were accurate, it doesnt result in a perpetual motion machine of a type that violates conservation laws: because the Mach Effect treats the universe as the system, not just some localized device.

There is no net conservation violation, therefore, no perpetuum mobile.
« Last Edit: 02/18/2011 04:55 AM by mlorrey »

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1110 on: 02/18/2011 05:56 AM »


I've seen this sort of criticism before, typically it is because they are using bad equations that form a false conjecture, a straw man, with which to debunk the idea, rather than using the actual equations that Woodward has published and which are actual physics compliant with general relativity.

However the most simple explanation for why, even if this guys equations were accurate, it doesnt result in a perpetual motion machine of a type that violates conservation laws: because the Mach Effect treats the universe as the system, not just some localized device.

There is no net conservation violation, therefore, no perpetuum mobile.

Yeah, I don't understand why people keep perpetuating the idea that Woodward's concept violates conservation of momentum when it clearly relies on it (albeit not in an obvious way).

I hope Paul responds to this criticism.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
  • Liked: 171
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1111 on: 02/18/2011 07:02 AM »
If we had wormhole technology and wanted to send one end of the worm hole to another star we could use the wormhole to provide fuel for the spaceship. That way we wouldn't have to carry any fuel and that mass wouldn't work against us.

True.  But this sort of presupposes that we've developed wormhole technology without going through field propulsion first.

If Mach-effect is how wormholes work, it would be a much, much better idea under almost any circumstances to simply use M-E thrusters rather than wasting some hapless planet's atmosphere...

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Liked: 246
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1112 on: 02/18/2011 04:53 PM »
Sith:

You might be interested in reading Woodward's latest paper when it's published in Foundations of Physics later this year.  It's about how the M-E can be applied to the Warp Drive and Stargate problem discussed in this video.  It's 26 pages long and it covers some new and interesting ground on how to make warp drives and stargates using the M-E's wormhole and higher terms to generate the required amount of exotic or negative G/I mass needed to create same.  And no, Jupiter sized exotic G/I masses will not be required for that estimate is a worst case.  It turns out it could be much, much less...

Speaking of warp drives,

In the latest paper by Marc Millis (attached below), it is indicated that warp drives are far less energy efficient than wormholes. For example, 10^46 joules of negative energy would be required to open a wormhole of a 100m diameter. If that same amount is applied to the formation of a warp bubble of the same diameter, it would result in a speed of only 1% the speed of light. What I find most interesting about warp drive is the ultimate speed limit as defined by Richard Obousy's approach of the manipulation of extra dimensions: an astounding max velocity of c*10^32. According to Obousy, at this velocity you could cross the known universe in 10^-15 seconds!

However, if the efficiency calculations are correct, then I guess wormholes are the way to go; if it's possible that is. Personally, I've always loved the idea of warp drive. It's sad to see it go.

P.S.

Paul,

Do you know how Dr. Harold White's QVF/MHD conjecture experiments are coming along? I'm having difficulty finding any publications on his idea. So far I've only been able to find material from the STAIF 2007 conference.

GeeGee:

The last known paper on Harold (Sonny) White's QVF/MHD conjecture was published in the AIP sponsored STAIF-2007 Conference.  The Abstract and url to same is below:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AIPC..880..987W

""Inertial Mass Dependency on Local Vacuum Fluctuation Mean Free Path"
White, H. G.

SPACE TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL FORUM-STAIF 2007: 11th Conf Thermophys.Applic.in Micrograv.; 24th Symp Space Nucl.Pwr.Propulsion; 5th Conf Hum/Robotic Techn & Vision Space Explor.; 5th Symp Space Coloniz.; 4th Symp New Frontrs & Future Con. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 880, pp. 987-994 (2007).

The intent of this narrative is to propose a relationship between the vacuum energy density, light-radius of the universe, and the plank force. The equation is proposed to infer a connection between inertial mass and an observer's light horizon. This horizon is conjectured to be the mean free path for vacuum fluctuations as seen by an observer in deep space. This fundamental relationship will then be derived from a gravitational wave equation. Once this has been derived, the results will be extended to derive an equation to calculate the effect local matter has on the mean free path of a vacuum fluctuation, and hence the local vacuum energy density (vacuum fluctuation pileup). The paper will conclude by applying the theoretical framework to calculate expected thrust signals in an externally applied ExB application meant to induce plasma drift in the vacuum fluctuations. Current experimental results from domestic and international labs will be addressed.

Keywords: Mathematical and relativistic aspects of cosmology, Quantum cosmology"

An experimental test on this QVF/MHD conjecture was pursued after this paper was published by Sonny White and me, but alas we ran into vacuum plasma glow discharge issues that we could not resolve with the funding at hand.  So the experiment had to terminated with no results published, for we never got the resonant cavity's ac voltage high enough to see any of the predicted effects.

PS:  I wouldn't put too much stock in the Millis paper's warp dirve energy magnitude conclusions, for the rule set governing this pure GRT based wormhole and warpdrive energy calculation is anything but complete at this stage of the game.  We have to wait for the arrival of a vetted Quantum Gravity theory that also includes Woodward's work to perform such calculations with any degree of confidence, or just try to build a stargate and see what happens.  However, I'd rather do that experiment on the Moon, or better yet Mars in case something really bad happens...
 
Best,

Paul M.
« Last Edit: 02/18/2011 05:02 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 655
  • Liked: 75
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1113 on: 02/18/2011 06:01 PM »
Reader GoatGuy at Nextbigfuture has this to say on the main ME conjecture:

Quote
FINALLY, the Mach Effect itself poses serious violations-of-physics problems, which most likely obviate its existence. Imagine for the moment that two equations of MachEffect vehicles are true:

A = ΔV = KME PELECTRIC / M
V = KME PELECTRIC T / M

EKINETIC = MV
EKINETIC = M ( KME PELECTRIC T / M )
EKINETIC = KPT/M

Which is to say the kinetic energy rises per the square of time ... since the K and E and M are constants. But, the energy put into the system is linear over time. Now - connect the dots - and you'll realize that when T = (2M)/(KP) ... the amount of electric energy input to the Mach device equals the amount of kinetic energy of the craft itself. After that, the craft's energy exceeds the electrical energy input...
FACTOR                      VALUE   UNITS       NOTES
-------------  ------------------------  ------------  -----------------------------------------------------------------
Mass                       10,000.00   kg             10 ton craft
K                                        0.01   N/W           low, but real conversion factor
P                        9,800,000.00    W              power needed for "1 G"
2M/KP                           20.41    sec            sec, from dead stop, to kinetic energy exceeding electrical imput
A                                         9.80   m/s          Acceleration of craft
V                                    200.00   m/s           velocity at cut-over where kinetic exceeds electrical
E                          200,000,000   J                Kinetic energy (== electrical input) at that point

It doesn't matter one whit whether the ME force (K) is really weak, or really strong - the equation works out to some time T where the kinetic energy of the moving vessel exceeds the energy actually put into it. After that point, it is a perpetual-motion machine (conceptually).

Because it's beyond me, I'm copying it here in case this wasn't already covered earlier in this thread.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/making-stargates-science-of-absurdly.html#comment-150634322

I've seen this sort of criticism before, typically it is because they are using bad equations that form a false conjecture, a straw man, with which to debunk the idea, rather than using the actual equations that Woodward has published and which are actual physics compliant with general relativity.

However the most simple explanation for why, even if this guys equations were accurate, it doesnt result in a perpetual motion machine of a type that violates conservation laws: because the Mach Effect treats the universe as the system, not just some localized device.

There is no net conservation violation, therefore, no perpetuum mobile.

The equations are not accurate, it is a simple restatement of the argument that was already covered in this thread 6 months ago.

The equations are incorrect because they are falsely constrained solutions to the ME equations Woodward derives. If you constrain mass to be constant, then yes, you get this result for these equations--but if you falsely constrain mass to be constant, than inertial fluctuations are obviously precluded as well.

So it's a variation of disproving the means(ME) by arbitrarily precluding the stated required conditions(variability of inertial mass) and working backwards to make it look scientific.

Dishonest line of argument. You can't disprove the statement "a+b=c" by starting from the assumption that "b" doesn't exist.

That's called "asking a different question.."
« Last Edit: 02/18/2011 06:06 PM by cuddihy »

Offline kurt9

  • Member
  • Posts: 31
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1114 on: 02/18/2011 08:45 PM »
I think the Millis wormhole vs. warp drive energy calculations come from Puthoff, Davis, and Haisch. At least this is where I saw it for the first time.



Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Liked: 246
  • TX/USA
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1115 on: 02/18/2011 08:48 PM »
Folks:

Goatguy apparently doesn't like his mass to fluctuate, I guess because Newton's three laws didn't mention this possibility.  However, when you take Newtons third law and apply Einsteins GRT and Sciama's inertial induction ideas to it, mass fluctuations fall out naturally whenever the required conditions for same are met per Dr. Woodward's Mach-Effect (M-E) derivation.  And those conditions for generating mass fluctuaions are that an energy storing media like a capacitor dielectric has to be bulk accelerated relative to the distant stars, while concurrently undergoing a large power flux through this energy storing media.  That in a nutshell is what the M-E is all about.  And so far the M-E derivation has met all comers and has not been found wanting...

Best,
Paul M.

PS: Some one at Next Big Future requested Woodward's Mach-Effect Derivation paper so it is appeded to this note.
« Last Edit: 02/21/2011 02:55 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline BarryKirk

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • Liked: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1116 on: 02/21/2011 05:35 PM »
Wow, just finished reading the report... This is excellent news....

Cart before horse, but here's hoping for Star Trek style impulse engines someday... maybe soon...

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
  • Liked: 78
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1117 on: 02/21/2011 06:32 PM »
since GoatGuy didnt came here, and PaulMarch didnt went there, I am bridgeing the two topics by copying and pasteing the arguments in the two threads.

I invited GoatGuy to this thread, since it would be better than all this copy/paste


Quote from: GoatGuy
I'm not sure I should thank you for 'cutting and pasting', but your intentions are pure, no doubt.

Got something for you - the mass fluctuations absolutely do not matter external to the Mach Effect system. It would be one thing if the mass of the ME components was diminishing, and remaining smaller/diminished after the driver is turned off. Then - all would be well. Mass, converted to energy. If the mass of the components return to their original mass, then ... what happens to all the conserved kinetic energy that was imparted to them? Do they suddenly decelerate, again conserving the energy invested in the device? If yes ... then again "we're good", and I'll stop debating the issue.

If not - if the device retains its velocity (which is at the very core of the purported and imagined uses for the drive, should it ever become practical), and moreover, if the host apparatus ("space ship", or "flywheel", or "lab bench pendulum" or whatever) retains the kinetic energy imparted to it at constant acceleration for constant ME device input power, then after exactly 2M/(kP) seconds, the whole thing - space ship, flywheel, maglev train, you name it - the whole thing has more kinetic energy than was invested in the ME propulsion device itself.

Thereafter, one can tap the whole for real, useable power, and we can get rid of virtually all nuclear, thermodynamic, hydroelectric and climactic (wind, sun) power sources. Really.

NOTE - to those who continue to cite that "Goatguy doesn't like..." this is not the case at all. I'm merely taking an exception to one huge - absolutely titanically huge - problem. Constant acceleration, regardless of velocity, for constant power invested in the Mach Effect propulsion device. I don't care if it has gerbils, spheres of unobtanium, plates of basalt, or extra-dark roast Sumatra coffee beans inside, and whether they change mass, turn colors, sing Dixie or have dark sexual liasons inside. Viewed as a "black box", the box violates the underlying principle of conservation (and equivalence) of energy - electrical and kinetic.

OR SOMEONE will just up and admit that the device has a special property that makes it seem like it is violating the energy/kinetic dynamic ... but really it is (as someone else said) "catching the gravinertial force that pervades the whole universe, like a sail on a sailboat catches the wind". Very eloquent and expressive! If this is so, then is the "wind" directional? It should be! Indeed, it should be easily measurable to have diurnal and seasonal, and latitudinal and longitudinal variation.

So again, instead of continually citing that GoatGuy is bringing up long-disproven (or simply battered-to-death) arguments, just take it on one more time, from the ground-floor up, so that all our good readers can see the debate, instead of the results of some other debate. The results won't be the same.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1118 on: 02/21/2011 08:01 PM »
Interesting debate. I'd like to see what Woodward himself has to say about GoatGuy's and Sebtel's argument.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
  • Liked: 78
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1119 on: 02/21/2011 08:04 PM »
I guess the arguments are simple enough that StarDrive can give a good reply.

Tags: